“If a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” and a natural born citizen were one and the same, there would not have been any point in mentioning the former at all.”
But then, if you were capable of basic reading, you would see that I never said they were “one and the same”. In fact, I made it excruciatingly clear they differ. And how do they differ? Well, a “citizen” includes both those who are citizens by birth, and those who are citizens by naturalization - such as Alexander Hamilton. Have you heard of him? He worked very hard to help get the Constitution adopted...
The grandfather clause allowed those who were not born in the USA, but who had fought in the Revolution, to hold the office of President - if elected.
Dear moron Rogers,
Your explanation ignores the logical fact that there could not be a “natural born” citizen of a country that did not yet exist.
You want our constitution destroyed so intensely that you throw logic out at the first step.