I can see the wisdom in what they intended and can appreciate that they did what they could to require that the most powerful, single individual in the Republic they were creating have a natural and legal allegiance to the Republic.
They did so using the language and its inherent meanings of their time and they trusted we'd be smart and wise enough to know what they intended.
Perhaps if they had anticipated a scoundrel like Bill Clinton master-de-bating the meaning of "is" or that "donning "gay" apparel" isn't only a part of the Christmas season like when the song was written, they'd have been more specific with definitions.
But, they did see how we would eventually lose it all to those who would undermine what they created for us and would replace our God given liberty and freedom with whatever tyrant they/we chose to take care of us.
Fortunately, many have taken seriously their oath to defend it.
And here we are, still are answering Franklin about whether or not we can keep it.
For many here, especially on these eligibility threads, the answer seems to be NO! and I'm glad they are outing themselves.
I don't like the big picture that is ever so slowly coming into focus, of which the ineligibility issue is but one small, yet vital part.
"...they did what they could to require that the most powerful, single individual in the Republic they were creating have a natural and legal undivided allegiance to the Republic."
That was the point of "Natural Born" Citizenship. You are born here to citizen parents. Not dual citizenship from one or both parents or via anchor baby citizenship and the potential divided loyalties as such might entail.
If we agree on one thing, it should be to follow the letter and intent of the Constitution, amending when necessary, but always to follow the Constitution as it is, rather than what we want it to be for political expediency.