First I find it interesting that you and Rodgers picked up the same diversionary type squirrel “pretend” argument..
**Uhh, lets pretend that some other country decides to usurp the citizenship of our country by suddenly declaring all US citizens to now be the citizens of country X. Then lets ask if any of those “former” US citizens can be qualified under the Constitution because they are no longer US citizens by virtue of country X laying claim to them**
Is this the question that you are asking? And are you seriously trying to participate in this discussion by making up some kooky scenario like this and presenting it as a SERIOUS question?
Or are you trying to cover for the fact that you can produce NO official *LAW* recognizing dual citizenship as a legitimately legal US class of citizenship? It is not in the history of this country, not now not ever. Because dual citizenship, specifically referencing Presidential eligibility under the Constitution is what this discussion is about. A person born a dual citizen (specifically for the issue of our modern times, being born after the Constitution was signed) is not eligible because such a class of citizenship did not exist in 1787 per US law or English common law.
“A person born a dual citizen (specifically for the issue of our modern times, being born after the Constitution was signed) is not eligible because such a class of citizenship did not exist in 1787 per US law or English common law.”
Try to come back to reality. They could not have banned what they could not conceive of existing. If the writers of the Constitution could not have imagined dual citizenship, they could not have banned it in a President.
And they did not. There is no mention of dual citizenship in the US Constitution, so it therefor cannot ban a dual citizen from office.
Consider the case of Lynch v. Clarke. Julia Lynch was born in New York while her parents visited America, and she left at around the age of 3 months and never returned to the U.S. The highest court in NY determined that she was a natural born citizen, eligible to run for President (if she returned long enough to satisfy the 14 year residency requirement):
“Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.”
That opinion was often quoted in the years to come, and Lynch was mentioned with approval in WKA.
There is no doubt that Julia Lynch was a dual citizen, and primarily a citizen (or subject) of England. But she was also a natural born citizen of the USA, and her case was never overturned or rejected by any subsequent court. That is, at a minimum, a pretty good sign that in 1844, dual citizenship was not barred by the NBC clause.
Nor could the judge in Lynch find any example otherwise during the years between 1787 and 1844.
The legal meaning of NBC included within it the possibility of a dual citizen, since some countries claim citizenship based on parentage. Had the Framers wanted something else, they could easily have written “born of citizen parents” (4 words) instead of “a natural born citizen” (4 words).
But they wrote what they wrote. You don’t have the right to overturn them.
**Uhh, lets pretend that some other country decides to usurp the citizenship of our country by suddenly declaring all US citizens to now be the citizens of country X. Then lets ask if any of those former US citizens can be qualified under the Constitution because they are no longer US citizens by virtue of country X laying claim to them**
Ah. I'm glad you recognize that your position leads to an absurdity.
Mr Rogers recognizes it, apparently. I think most intelligent people would recognize it.
And it's not because Mr Rogers and I are in some kind of secret collusion here. The ABSURDITY is an OBVIOUS CONSEQUENCE of your position.
If your position is CORRECT, then it means, as an OBVIOUS CONSEQUENCE, that legally speaking, the North Koreans can pass a law tomorrow making every person born in the United States a North Korean citizen. Therefore, we would be giving any country on earth the power to destroy or at least significantly cripple the United States, by making it impossible for us to elect a Constitutional President. At least, without passing a Constitutional Amendment so that we could do so.
Those are the LEGAL CONSEQUENCES of your position.
Or do you not think laws mean anything?
So, according to you...
Those HACK Framers have messed it up again.
Or are you trying to cover for the fact that you can produce NO official *LAW* recognizing dual citizenship as a legitimately legal US class of citizenship?
No. It's obvious that dual citizenship EXISTED, whether we passed a law "recognizing" it or not.
Heck, THREE OUT OF OUR FIRST FOUR PRESIDENTS were dual citizens... WHILE IN OFFICE.
Look. We defined whether a person was a citizen OF THE UNITED STATES, or not.
We made NO PROVISION for any change WHATSOEVER in a person's UNITED STATES citizenship status on the basis of whether or not some other country also recognized that person as a citizen.
So there's no clause invalidating a person's eligibility to be President on the basis of whether some other country recognized him as its citizen. It doesn't exist. DOES NOT EXIST.
So your claim that "a person born a dual citizen... is not eligible because such a class of citizenship did not exist in 1787" is simple and complete NONSENSE.
There are clear rules for defining who is and is not a US CITIZEN. There were and are NO RULES that say that citizenship is revoked, changed, or modified IN ANY WAY by the fact that another country recognizes him as a citizen, whether he accepts that citizenship or not.
It simply doesn't exist. And it's a damn good thing, too, because as we've seen, it leads directly to a complete legal absurdity.