Absolutely incorrect! Why in the world would they have written something so redundant....mentioning both terms in one paragraph?
At the time of the signing there were no "Natural Born" Citizens yet. It was a brand new country! But as time went by new folks were being born all the time to parents who were citizens of this new country.....and they were referred to as "Natural Born".
After a long time they were no Citizens left alive who had been alive at the signing of the Constitution and that's when the grandfather clause took effect. At that point....only Natural Born Citizens could seek the Presidency. Anyone born in the country (Native Citizens) to non-citizen parents were eliminated from consideration.
“Absolutely incorrect!”
St. George Tucker:
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.” View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings [1803]
James Kent:
“The Constitution requires (a) that the President shall be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war” Commentaries on American Law (1826)
Minor v. Happersett () 100 U.S. 1
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Luria v. United States - 231 U.S. 9 (1913)
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
Can you cite any court causes where the court said that native born and natural born are different or that the meaning changed between the Founding era and today?