Thanks, Edge. That is a very informative post.
Speaking of insanity, the idea that the Framers would have preferred a person w divided loyalties to occupy the highest office in the land over one w undivided loyalties—now that is truly insane. I make allowances for those who genuinely do not comprehend ‘divided loyalties’ in this context. But for anyone who grasps the concept to imagine the Framers purposely enshrined the right to become POTUS to the children of foreigners—again, one word: insane.
“I make allowances for those who genuinely do not comprehend ‘divided loyalties’ in this context.”
__
And I’m sure your allowances are fully appreciated.
But for some of us who have had trouble comprehending just what this context is, I would still appreciate your helping us understand what you have in mind.
In the following hypothetical examples, which of the candidates have divided loyalties?
1) Candidate A was born and raised in the United States. Never even traveled abroad. And his parents were both U.S. citizens, having naturalized the day before he was born, and he decides at age 50 to run for President.
2) Candidate B was born and raised in the United States. Never even traveled abroad. And his parents were both U.S. citizens, but didn’t naturalize until the day after he was born, and he decides at age 50 to run for President.
3) Candidate C was born in the United States to two citizen parents. Shortly after his birth, his parents renounced their U.S. citizenship and moved to North Korea, where they became active members of the community and raised their son there. But he retained his U.S. citizenship, returned permanently to live in the U.S. at age 35, and at age 50 decides to run for President.
Which of these have divided loyalties? Which are eligible under the Constitution to serve as President?
I think it’s a straightforward question, and I’d really appreciate a straightforward answer.