There's nothing to solve. The British citizenship of the Founding Fathers' parents is the reason they exempted themselves from the Natural Born requirement. TWO parents of United States citizenship (not necessarily Natural Born) are required for a US citizen to also be a Natural Born Citizen.
Do you honestly think they would have wanted "anchor babies" to be president? The real possibility of a CIC with divided loyalties would have been suicide for this fledgling new nation. Think man, think!
Do I think they wanted “anchor babies” to be President? I have no clear idea, but given the transportation of the time, I doubt they would have considered the concept at all. But again, my opinion is moot.
Also, we are no longer a fledging nation (fortunately).
But perhaps most important, is that the original Consititution is NOT the law the land. The existing Constitution is, which includes 27 amendments (I am particularly grateful for the 21st). The 14th amendment is equal to the “intent of the framers”, as that is how our Constitution works. The 14th, among other things, clarified who is a citizen, and like it or not even “anchor babies” are citizens...that is simply a fact..
Did it specifically declare who is a “natural born citizen?” No.
Did it specifically delineate between natural/native/naturalized? No.
But neither has a subsequent amendment, an act of Congress or a ruling by the Supreme Court with any degree of certainty. We may all have opinions on the matter, but under current law (common and statutory) the only two types of citizenship are native and naturalized.
I also am surprised you think that it was the PARENTS of the founding fathers that made them require such language the determining factor. That claims is utterly without foundation. They simply wanted Americans (a citizenship born with their adoption of the Constitution) to be President, not naturalized citizens. There is no foundation to your claim that they were concerned about where parents were from....after all they were all English subjects, and I have no reason to think they gave any thought to where their parents were from.
Lastly, I am surprised that some of us conservatives think that what another country (British, Kenyan, etc) laws say about the status of our citizens somehow trumps our native laws. If the nation of France declared George Bush a citizen, would that then make him ineligible to have been President? I, for one, don’t think international law, or more specifically laws or recognitions passed by any other country, trump our own laws. Sounds like UN BS to me.
That's an interesting theory. Unfortunately, there's nothing in the constitution or in US case law to support it.