The fact that the exception is there, written as it is, should be enough to show you your error, since it further supports the definition by being the exception to it, see?
It is, as the FFs might say, self evident. Your quoted material, though not clearly written for us now, is telling you this as well, while explaining some of the reasoning behind their intentions.
When you have several opposing opinions, answers can be found, not by a battle of opposing quotes as is your way, but from determining intent and purpose, and then letting the facts tell you the truth.
Letting your agenda dictate your truth first, then cherry picking your facts and ignoring inconvenient counter data, is the wrong approach and almost always results in error.
Global warming is yet another of many such examples from your team's playbook.
To find the truth, it's better to be a trouble shooter, an engineer or a forensic detective, rather than a quote hunter, and let facts and your reason tell you the story and show you what the truth is.
One of my regular arguments is that their interpretation renders Article II pointless and so therefore their interpretation is wrong.
The "natural born citizen" requirement is intended to insure an allegiance and love of country. It is the duty of the father to impart this allegiance, and it cannot be expected to be accomplished simply by being born inside American Borders. It has to be taught.
Derivative naturalization through the father is a long recognized principle, and it is only so because the father has demonstrated his intention to be an American, and the children will naturally follow the allegiance of the father. "Partus Sequitur Patrem."
Are you talking about the grandfather clause? Did you even read the posts referenced in those links? Do I have to post the entire text? Or are you able to click on a link?
It is absolutely clear that the grandfather clause wasn't put in there for the purpose of making George Washington eligible to be President. It was put in there for the purpose of making people like James Wilson (born in Scotland) and Alexander Hamilton (born on the island of Nevis in the Caribbean) eligible.
Washington, Jefferson, and the other Founders who were born in any of the 13 Colonies-->States were all native sons, and the Founders considered all of them to be natural born subjects/ citizens.
For an explanation of why that's the case, click the links.
There's not a single competent historian or significant legal authority, and as far as I can tell, there never has been, who thinks the grandfather clause was put in there to make George Washington eligible.
When you have several opposing opinions, answers can be found, not by a battle of opposing quotes... but from determining intent and purpose, and then letting the facts tell you the truth.
Letting your agenda dictate your truth first, then cherry picking your facts and ignoring inconvenient counter data, is the wrong approach and almost always results in error.
To find the truth, it's better to be a trouble shooter, an engineer or a forensic detective, rather than a quote hunter, and let facts and your reason tell you the story and show you what the truth is.
This is exactly what I've been saying from the very beginning.
Incidentally, there's no "counter data" that I or any of the other reality-based people here have "ignored." We've looked at every single damn point raised by the birthers. I have a list of 48 bogus arguments made by birthers - which in fact includes every major argument I know of that they've made - and I can explain to you or anyone else exactly why each and every one of them is BS.
It's not the same for the birthers. We raise a point (like this one) and they either ignore it, or come up with some obvious fallacy to try and explain it away.
So it's completely clear to anyone who spends the time to really look at the arguments who's telling the truth, and who's slinging enormous amounts of BS.