Knowing this, having experience with the concepts and issues noted and with history, the FFs chose a precise definition/class/standard of citizenship to avoid all legal or allegiance issues/problems/contentions, and keep it in the family, so to speak.
Of those, the FF chose the highest standard, the only one that avoids all such potential issues.
For the single, most powerful person in their new government, with 1/3 of its legislative power, the power to sign treaties and bills into the laws that govern us, and with control over the nation’s armed forces, they went with the highest standard and so noted it in the eligibility requirement.
This is what I was taught in 5th grade. It is backed up in my life experience. It is supported by common sense.
You and all the others who come here to blow fog on this issue will not talk me out of this belief until you counter the above logically.
But you won’t, because you can’t.
Once again, I note your reasons for believing the above.
"It is what I was taught in 5th grade."
"It is backed up in my life experience."
"It is supported by common sense."
Now note what you didn't say:
You didn't say that the historical evidence supports it.
And that was well left out, because the historical evidence does NOT support the idea.
So once again, we are back to: "My theory, and my 'common sense,' trump the historical record."
But they don't. The historical record is the ONLY reliable indicator of HISTORY.
Anything else is simply fantasy, and a denial of the truth of our history.
But let's go with your theory for a moment.
Your THEORY goes like this:
The Founding Fathers were wise.
Therefore, the Founding Fathers would have chosen - make that "chose" - only the highest possible citizenship qualification for President.
So the Founding Fathers did not tolerate any possible conflict of allegiance in a President. No one with any citizenship OTHER than United States citizenship could be allowed to serve as President, could they? Because possession of any citizenship other than United States citizenship is an indicator of a divided loyalty, a divided allegiance. Even if the person received that citizenship only because Italy (for example) grants citizenship to all children of its citizens worldwide, whether or not that person ever lived in Italy, spoke Italian, etc.
That is what we're talking about, right? By your theory, the current President, for example, is ineligible because he had British citizenship at birth, even though he has never permanently resided in Britain or Kenya and even though he doesn't even speak the Kenyan native language that his father spoke, and even though his British citizenship lapsed long ago.
So by your theory, having been granted foreign citizenship by some other country, at any point in one's life, is enough to permanently bar a person from the Presidency.
Now. Never mind that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that.
And never mind that nowhere in the entire history of our nation has any Founding Father, nationally-recognized legal expert, or court of any kind EVER stated that this complete lack of "dual allegiance" is in any way a requirement.
That, by the way, is absolutely remarkable, if your theory is true. A requirement exists, but no Founding Father or other nationally-recognized authority has EVER spoken or written about it or so much as acknowledged its existence?
Really???
The fact that NO SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITY IN OUR ENTIRE HISTORY HAS EVER MADE THE CLAIM YOU MAKE IN REGARD TO PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY - NOT ONE - to be a damn reliable indicator that the requirement DOES NOT EXIST.
Because thousands and thousands of pages have been written by the Founding Fathers, their contemporaries, nationally-recognized legal interpreters of the Constitution, foundations such as the Heritage Foundation, our courts, and the writers of textbooks.
THOUSANDS of pages.
And NOT ONCE has any of those sources ever made the claim you make.
Now that's logic. That's a demonstration: Your definition does not exist.
But there's another way of LOGICALLY demonstrating that your theory is hogwash.
You asked for logic, remember?
If your theory is true, then it is utterly intolerable to our Founding Fathers and their generation for anyone to have any kind of dual citizenship or dual allegiance, and serve as President.
And yet 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens of France, made so by the French legislature - AND WERE DUAL CITIZENS WITH FRANCE WHILE SERVING AS PRESIDENT.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.
Three out of our first four.
AND ALL THREE WERE AMONG OUR MOST PROMINENT FOUNDING FATHERS.
By your theory, this isn't possible. Because the same logic that bars someone from serving as President if he was named a citizen of Italy as a baby, because his parents were Italian citizens, even though he himself had not the slightest relationship with the country of Italy, absolutely applies if someone, THROUGH HIS ACTUAL, REAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A FOREIGN COUNTRY IN ADULTHOOD WAS AWARDED CITIZENSHIP OF THAT COUNTRY AS AN ADULT.
So the Founding Fathers themselves absolutely contradict the rationale of your theory.
The fact is, it's a nice theory.
But it's not true. It is simply not in line with history.
So once again, you have a choice.
Do you go with the Founding Fathers and the truth of our history, or do you go with your own opinion of how you personally would write history?
I know who I pick. I pick the Founding Fathers and the truth.
I got as far as your using Italy claiming all the world as Italian citizens as why the FFs had divided loyalty wrong or something and couldn't go any farther/further (always get that one wrong). I just couldn't do it.
For your sake and anyone else who might be helped, I tried to. Honest, I did, but it was too much. Even for me.
Anywho...again, "Jeff", I am being totally honest with you and am going to play along with your REAL conservative persona and just offer my opinion...and that's all it is, an opinion, but it comes from a good place.
For what it's worth cred-wise, I've taken more than a few classes and grew up around a lot of crazy (technical psychiatric term) in the various families and such I grew up in, have dated my share crazy and went back for more, have some amateur OJT in several professions, even got some experience with brain trauma and all that comes with it earning the multiple concussion syndrome merit badge. (Bet my x-rays are cooler than yours, neener, neener.)
You don't have to believe me when I tell you anything, but you can believe me when I tell you to get some help.
I don't have a license to tell you anything more specifically than my opinion, but really. Do it. I know the look. Get some help.
You are on the wrong side, darksider, all I can do is shine a light. Those are your steps to walk.
If you want to walk through the logic, one by one, and ONLY one at a time, I'll do what I can for you. Obviously, I'm damaged, so go slow with me. ONE. AT. A. TIME.