Hahahahaha! Is Mr. Rodgers your alter-ego?
“If the Constitution makes no mention of dual citizenship, then how can the Constitution bar a dual citizen from being President?”
even worth responding to? It’s surprising he didn’t wrap it up with a hearty, “So there!”
The Constitution isn’t a document for dimwits.
Again I ask you to present your source of proof that dual citizenship was an officially recognized class of citizenship in either the US or in England at the time the Constitution was signed.
Because you see, if it was not even considered a form of citizenship at all, if it in essence “did not exist”, it would not have been mentioned at all - anywhere.
Which is why you cannot produce any source mentioning dual citizenship as a legitimate form of citizenship, officially recognized or not, at or before the signing of the Constitution.
Look. If I understand your argument, it is that dual citizens at birth are not eligible to be President. Right?
Yes, or no.
So according to your theory, if another country made a person who was born a US citizen ALSO born THEIR citizen, then that person is ineligible to be President of the United States. Right?
Yes or no.
These are simple yes or no questions.
Why can I not get a straight, yes or no answer from these birthers? It’s like I’m asking them to derive Einstein’s equation.