You have absolutely no evidence for this claim.
Of course I do, genius, or I wouldn't have made it.
Unlike you.
The members of the Constitutional Convention kept records. There were both official records and unofficial records kept by various Delegates, including James Madison.
Over 100 years ago, Professor Max Farrand compiled the records of the Convention into 4 volumes. There are more than 2,000 pages of records from the Constitutional Convention.
Hamilton did make a presentation of sorts to the other delegates, fairly early in the game.
But even this presentation was not put formally before the Convention for their approval. He simply read an outline of his working plan, for the purpose of throwing out some of his ideas.
And that plan did NOT contain any birth qualification whatsoever for President.
His "born a Citizen" wording appears ONLY in a paper he gave to James Madison AFTER THE CONVENTION WAS OVER.
And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the delegates "rejected" Hamilton's "born a Citizen" wording, or that they saw any difference in meaning at all between the words "born a Citizen" and the words "a natural born Citizen."
Nor is there any statement whatsoever from the 2,000-plus pages of Constitutional Convention documentation, any Founding Father, any historical writer, or any legal expert in history that anybody found any particular difference between the words "born a Citizen" and "a natural born Citizen."
Gee. Don't you think if there was a difference, somebody would've commented on it?
Don't you think that if the delegates had "rejected Hamilton's proposal," SOMEBODY would've commented on it?
Of course they would have.
MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND PAGES OF NOTES AND DOCUMENTS FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, AND NOT ONE PERSON COMMENTS, "HEY, WE THOUGHT HAMILTON'S PROPOSAL WAS TOO 'LENIENT,' SO WE CHANGED THE WORDING."
Hamilton's "proposal" THAT WAS NEVER EVEN PRESENTED, AS FAR AS ANYBODY CAN TELL.
Farrand, who read every single damn note of the records, comments that Hamilton's document "was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton."
No, the REALITY is that only two men proposed a birth qualification for President.
John Jay and Alexander Hamilton.
And the two were so close that they collaborated on the crucial Federalist Papers after the Convention.
One said "born a Citizen," the other said "natural born Citizen." Maybe "natural born Citizen" had a nicer ring to it. I don't know.
But the thing I do know is that not one of the Founders or Framers or any other early US legal experts EVER said that "natural born Citizen" was anything more than "born a Citizen."
They just didn't.
And you would know that if you actually read HISTORY, and LAW, and the CONSTITUTION, instead of just reading the stupid opinion of some pathetically uninformed birther who flatters himself that he knows what he's talking about, when in reality he doesn't have a clue.
Of course I do, genius, or I wouldn't have made it.
Jeff Jeff Jeff Jeff... We know you. You've never needed evidence to make wild claims. You just do it. As a matter of fact, we know you have an aversion to evidence, because every time we show you some, you shriek like a little girl and run away in horror!
Jeff screaming and running like a little girl depicted below.
Here some evidence. We already know you don't like it.
Actual evidence is like Kryptonite to you.
All you’ve tried to prove is that Hamilton’s idea was so hare-brained that it didn’t even merit a “formal” presentation. Thus, it was rightly rejected. That you would try to resurrect this rejected idea outside of the due process of Constitutional amendment is repugnant and anti-American.
