Two points. First, they couldn't have rejected it based on the pressing of Americans into British Navy service, since that mostly happened around 20 years *after* the Constitution was written. Secondly they didn't reject it at all. The 1790 law, passed by the first Congress only 3 years after the Constitution was written in September of 1787, provided:
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".
The practice of pressing young men into service dates back as far as Elizabeth I, late 1500's.
At the establishment on the Constitution the Founding Fathers were surely aware of this practice. After all, Britain had been occasionally pressing New England fishermen into the Royal Navy for nearly two centuries.
Yes, it didn't become a major enough issue to go back to war with Britain until 1812, but is was one of the zillions of details they considered.
Even the 1790 law didn't extend natural born citizenship beyond the first off-shore generation.
When the 1790 law was repealed the new law dropped the language 'natural born'. Dammit. That would have made McCain's eligibility exquisitely clear!
If only we could get the Supremes to rule that for the purposes of holding the office of the president the 1790 requirements suffice, then McCain wouldn't suffer under one or two terms of leftists insisting that he's an illegal president because he was born a couple miles from the Canal Zone. You KNOW they will!
The down side? This phrase: "That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States" Barrack Obama Sr. was a resident of the US as a student, and that would also qualify a Kenyan born, Indonesia raised Stanley Ann Dunham, Jr., err, Barry Toot, uh, Barry Soetorro, ummm, Barrack, Jr.
I'd be willing to sacrifice a McCain (at the very best I only have tepid support for in anyway) to permanently drive a stake through any thought of an Obama presidency. You may have a different threshold. I can respect that.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it but:
"The framers of the constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of "birthright subjectship" or "birthright allegiance" never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a "debt of gratitude." According to Blackstone, this debt is "intrinsic" and "cannot be forfeited, canceled, or altered." Birthright subjectship under common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.America's Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that "the good people of these Colonies...are Absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved." According to Blackstone, the common law regards this as "high treason." So the common law--the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance--could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e. republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain!" - Edward J. Erler, Professor of Political Science
I read this to mean that being an American is different than the preceding reality, and that being an American citizen is not something imposed on someone by an accident of birth. It can derive from being born in American to Americans, or it can be earned by the citizenship process. It is an actual right, not an obligation. We even allow people to leave!
The question still lingers: What did the Founding Fathers mean with a restriction unique to holding the office of the president, that of needing to be not just a citizen, but to be a 'natural born' citizen.
I believe that their intent was to exclude anyone with any hint of divided loyalties, specifically including a certain fondness for a place of birth other than on US soil disqualifies.
YMMV.
Anyway thanks for raising excellent points, I even managed to learn a little (pre-coffee no less!) formulating an answer.