[andyfox]

The Framers chose their words quite carefully. If they had meant the second clause to be independent of the first, it wouldn't have been a second clause. The second clause has no plain meaning without the first clause. Consider the following from the Constitution:

"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:"

The plain meaning of the sentence is not that "he shall take the following oath of affirmation," but rather that he shall do it before he enter on execution of his office. To ignore the first clause because the second clause is "plain" distorts what was intended in the language.

That said, the Framers also intended that the Constitution would elaborate general principles; they did not intend that their relating of those general principles to the circumstances of the 1780s should be the way that future generations should relate them. Again, considering the sentence I have cited, since it says "he," does that mean a woman is not entitled to be president?