“Because the law that they passed completely contradicts YOUR claim that “the Founding Fathers intended that it take the highest possible allegiance to make a person eligible to be President; therefore it birth on US soil plus two citizen parents.” “
Gee, Jeff. If it is as you say it is, why did they delete the words “natural born” in 1795?
Nice try at the distraction, but let’s keep focused on the subject of our discussion - which is your selective posting of things in a manner to deceive. Posting something from 1790 to support your argument, that you know was repealed in 1795 (which you didn’t post), is done with an intent to deceive. You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else reading this thread.
There's no "if," jackass. It's a matter of historical record. Anybody can look it up.
Nice try at the distraction, but let’s keep focused on the subject of our discussion - which is your selective posting of things in a manner to deceive.
Nice try, jackass. The subject of the discussion is your bullsh*t, which this is another episode of.
Fact is, you made an idiotic claim that isn't backed up by history. You can't attack the historical record, so you attack the messenger.
Posting something from 1790 to support your argument, that you know was repealed in 1795 (which you didn’t post), is done with an intent to deceive. You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else reading this thread.
It was changed by a different, later Congress, jackass.
YOU and other jackass birthers have made the claim that the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution, writing the Presidential eligibilty clause in 1787, intended and specified that ONLY people with the "highest form of allegiance," that is, those who were BOTH born on US soil AND had US citizen parents, should be eligible to the Presidency.
The actions of the First Congress, pretty much as soon as the new nation's government convened, WHICH TOGETHER WITH PRESIDENT WASHINGTON, INCLUDED 40% OF THOSE WHO SIGNED THE CONSTITUTION, flatly and absolutely contradict you.
In fact, it's even worse than that.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, whom you disdain because he doesn't support your bullshit, said that in regard to the kind of allegiance that made a person a citizen, both parentage and place of birth were relevant, but that in general, place of birth was "the most certain" and it was "what applies in the United States.
That means that Madison, the Father of our Constitution, regarded place of birth as STRONGER than parentage alone.
So when the First Congress, including 40% of the Constitution's signers, specified that parentage ALONE (the WEAKER criterion, remember?) was sufficient to make a person eligible to the Presidency, that was a tacit approval clearly signifying that the stronger allegiance that came from place of birth, without parentage, was also adequate to meet the requirement.
Now, I don't expect you to have followed that, because frankly you don't seem smart enough. About all you can do is repeat the false accusation that I have somehow "misrepresented history" or "omitted things" "with an intent to deceive."
That, of course, is what jackasses do. They have no actual argument, so about all they can do is make false accusations.
So make some more. Jackass.