You are using a two-century-old example of rule by the whims of monarchs (one constitutional, the other absolute) as precedent for American constitutional law. Do I need to point out the problems with that?
Had he claimed to be an American, and was therefore exempt, they would have thrown him in the army or they would have thrown him in prison.
"Dual citizenship," as a legal status, does not exist in most of the world, except in countries where it's prohibited. If you are a citizen of Italy and the United States, under Italian law you are an Italian. Under US law you are an American. Not partly, not sorta kinda. You are required to use your US passport when entering or exiting the US; what happens at any other border or in any other country is not under US jurisdiction.
The Notion that someone who could have been compelled to fight in a Foreign Army against us is qualified to be our President is nonsensical and ridiculous.
The notion that a foreign country's laws can be allowed to dictate who is and who is not eligible to be president of the United States is nonsensical and ridiculous. Suppose Saddam Hussein, in 2000, had declared George W. Bush to be a citizen of Iraq. Would that have made him ineligible to be president?
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
Please do. Perhaps in your repetition of my arguments, people will slowly wake up to the point. Jus Soli is Feudal/Monarchy based law meant to snare servants for the King. Our founding was a rejection of this claim upon us.
The notion that a foreign country's laws can be allowed to dictate who is and who is not eligible to be president of the United States is nonsensical and ridiculous.
The Referral to this as "foreign country's laws" is a miscomprehension of the topic. "International law" is long recognized, and governs how nations resolve disputes with each other. A person upon which no nation but one can lay any claim, is recognized by International law as having a sole citizenship to that one nation.
A Natural American citizen in Italy would still be recognized as an American Citizen in Italy, and by International law, not Italian law.
Most of the World has given up Jus Soli, including England. It was a stupid body of law, and it created all sorts of headaches and offenses throughout History. It was cobbled together by a Monarch intent on using it to further his Political Interests, and it has always been ill suited to a Republic of Free men. In this Country it was routinely violated by the Exceptions of British Loyalists, Slaves and Indians . It ought to be thrown on the ash heap of History, and as far as i'm concerned, the founders did that very thing.
Had not subsequent Lawyer @$$holes not lied about it, it would have stayed dead just as it should be.