Chester A. Arthur was President of the United States. His Father was not a US Citizen when he was born and by the laws of the time neither was his Mother. Nevertheless, he was elected President and no one argued that he was not eligible.
This argument is some off shoot of the immigration argument. I'm not dogmatic about it, I'm just pretty sure where the law stands at this point. Maybe it should be changed, but right now regardless of what you think the "founders" thought (they didn't agree totally on much of anything), the law doesn't agree with you.
Now I'll let this go because there is no end to this argument.
Can you find a contemporary opinion from a member of the Constitutional Convention which says they wanted anchor babies to be President?
Arthur burned all his papers so no one would know the circumstances of his birth or his father’s citizenship; the latter which he also lied about. It wasn’t until this year that it was verified Arthur’s father wasn’t naturalized until Chet was aged 14.
You seem to ignore the fact that the 1787 constitutional convention ADOPTED the measure advocated by Washington thru Jay. It’s right there in the constitution.
No one knew about Arthur's father's naturalization date. Like Obama, he kept it a secret. I understand he lied about it, and burned all his personal documents just before his death to keep the secret. Leo Donofrio, the attorney who uncovered - possibly discovered -the Arthur ineligility, is writing a book about it. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ No case went to court; there was not discovery, as, thus far, has been the case with Obama’s alleged ineligibility.