And that's part of the LIE! It's not that what you post isn't true, it's that you deceptively claim IT SUPPORTS YOUR ARGUMENT WHEN IT DOES NOT!
Again, your quoting of the opinion of the Marquee de Lafayette's Aide, is an example of this. Why on God's earth would you regard the French Aide of a French National as a SOURCE on the meaning of Article II "natural born citizen?" He was neither a delegate, a representative, a founder, or even a Judge, yet you keep CITING that silly bastard as proof that you are right! And then there's that SPANISH guy you keep citing! Again, no delegate, no Representative, no Judge, and no founder, yet you cite him anyway! And these are just two examples among many ( I could probably come up with a dozen examples of you doing this.) of you misrepresenting someone as a knowledgeable source, or misrepresenting their meaning as supporting you.
unless an honest mistake (not often, but I'm sure it's happened), in which case I've promptly acknowledged and corrected it and not repeated the claim.
You are either deluded, or a pathological liar, who happens to believe his own lies. Given how artfully you have truncated quotes so as to change their meaning, I'm voting for Deliberate and knowing liar.
Umm... possibly because he was one of our important military leaders during the Revolution, under General Washington, was (indirectly) one of the most important financiers and assisters of the American Revolution, bringing the French in on our side, and was declared a "natural born citizen forever" by the State of Maryland?
Perhaps because he was a good personal friend of President George Washington, President John Adams, President Thomas Jefferson, President James Madison, President James Monroe, and President John Quincy Adams - every single one of our first SIX Presidents?
Having been declared a "natural born citizen" by the State of Maryland, don't you think he would asked what the term meant?
Being a good personal friend of our first six Presidents, don't you think he would have had easy access to what they considered the term to mean?
And with his assistant having written an entire book telling exactly what the Americans were doing in their political process, don't you think that his assistant, coming across the qualifications for President and needing to know what they meant, and having ready access to any one of our first six Presidents, as well as a man who had been specifically named a "natural born citizen" of the United States, don't you think he would've gotten it right?
Oh, but you've got some judge who was over several counties in Pennsylvania, who wasn't an important military leader in our Revolution, who didn't work closely with General George Washington, who didn't sit with Ben Franklin and George Washington and our other top leaders in meetings discussing the future of the country, who didn't know Washington, or Adams, or Jefferson, or Madison, or Monroe, or the second Adams. Ah, HE'S the person.
And then there's that SPANISH guy you keep citing! Again, no delegate, no Representative, no Judge, and no founder, yet you cite him anyway!
Not one of the known translators of the Constitution or commentators, foreign or domestic, EVER said that "natural born citizen" required citizen parents.
If your (bullsh*t) theory were correct, wouldn't that strike you as EXTEMELY REMARKABLE?
That NOT ONE of the translators, or commentators, or Founders, or national-level early legal experts in all of early America, EVER said it says what you claim it means: "born in the United States of citizen parents?"
Instead, they ALL say it means either "born in the United States," or "born a citizen."
You are either deluded, or a pathological liar, who happens to believe his own lies. Given how artfully you have truncated quotes so as to change their meaning, I'm voting for Deliberate and knowing liar.
Once again, another BULLSH*T FALSE ACCUSATION made by you against me.
We went OVER AND OVER that, and it was shown conclusively that I HAD ALREADY, IN THE SAME THREAD, INCLUDED A QUOTE FROM THE EXACT SAME PERSON THAT SAID THE SAME THING YOU MADE A BIG DEAL OVER MY NOT INCLUDING ELSEWHERE.
So once again, MORE BULLSH*T by you.
As for you, given the volume and consistency of your ABSOLUTE BULLSH*T, I can't conclude that you're deluded. The only option I have is to conclude that you're a pathological liar.