That's nonsense. That is the Birther Brigade intention, but they weren't around when the Constitution was crafted.
you're absolutely incorrect.
the Founders wanted to insure no foreign king could ever hold the top office. that's extremely well know. they also wanted to insure no foreign allegiances, at least by birth.
as for the definition of the phrase, it was published decades before in 'the law of nations'. do you think the highly educated people founding a nation would refer to such a text? obviously. and what was written in that text?
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
-- The Law of Nations, 1758
any other definition written after the Constitution would be irrelevant. any court case that did not review such information is a case expecting to be overruled.
I am floored daily by people who do not understand what a natural born citizen is.... It was and always will be about divided loyalties.
Like I have asked many times, that no one will answer, is how the founders would have handled King George knocking up an American mother. I am quite certain they would rule that child ineligible due to the natural born clause.
You are repeating a version of the Birther argument. Eight years on, and that has not gathered any support from those you count. Even the great Justice Scalia thought that the argument was flawed. Maybe someone will agree with you some day