That's nonsense. That is the Birther Brigade intention, but they weren't around when the Constitution was crafted.
So you believe if King George had fathered a child with an American woman, the founders would have accepted that child as qualified for the presidency?
That's nonsense. That is the Birther Brigade intention, but they weren't around when the Constitution was crafted.
you're absolutely incorrect.
the Founders wanted to insure no foreign king could ever hold the top office. that's extremely well know. they also wanted to insure no foreign allegiances, at least by birth.
as for the definition of the phrase, it was published decades before in 'the law of nations'. do you think the highly educated people founding a nation would refer to such a text? obviously. and what was written in that text?
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
-- The Law of Nations, 1758
any other definition written after the Constitution would be irrelevant. any court case that did not review such information is a case expecting to be overruled.
Don’t you remember when Trump brought this up, it was just as a “favor” to Cruz? He didn’t think it was an issue, in his obviously learned constitutional opinion (see: Trumpisms on separation of powers, the legislative process, spending, etc.), but he was simply recommending that it be litigated to get it out of the way. Being pals with Cruz at the time, he was just looking out for him. I imagine he is very relieved that this has been, repeatedly, a non-issue for Cruz in court.
Let me know if you think anything I said then is misleading or inaccurate.
ML/NJ