I mean, what background could James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, have for really understanding what the phrase "natural born citizen" means?
What's his credentials and claim for knowledge to try to usurp what thousands of birthers and Corsi and WND readers all KNOW as fact?
/sarc
Good point! How could I think James Madison understood the Constitution! /sarc
Read the link your partner posted, obot. It does not address presidential eligibility. You’ve outed yourself, n00b.
We are not ignorant enough to fall for your fallacy of substitution. The topic being discussed by Madison was that of "CITIZEN", not "Natural born citizen." As the founders themselves demonstrated by making an exception for themselves, NONE of them were "NATURAL BORN CITIZENS" and that included Congressman Smith, whom Madison was defending.
I mean, what background could James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, have for really understanding what the phrase "natural born citizen" means?
You are again substituting the term of art "Natural born citizen" for that of "Citizen." The distinction between which is manifested by the fact that Article II uses both terms rather than one. James Madison was not arguing "natural born citizen", he was arguing just basic citizenship. (No one older than 14 years of age was a "natural born citizen" at this time.) Even then, his next statement is an appeal to Jus Sanguinus.
"Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony."
Were his argument of "place" enough, there would be no need for an appeal to the man's right by blood. (ancestors) Madison asserts "Jus Soli" yet immediately invokes "Jus Sanguinus."
What's his credentials and claim for knowledge to try to usurp what thousands of birthers and Corsi and WND readers all KNOW as fact?
Firstly, you are intentionally misleading people about what it is he is claiming, and secondly you are overlooking the fact that subsequent generations have the advantage of Hindsight and access to knowledge he didn't posses. Thirdly you are overlooking the fact that his argument appealed not to the soil, but to his rights by descent.(blood) You are in fact, trying to twist Madison's argument from it's purpose in a futile and pathetic attempt to serve your own.
I look forward to your reply because I enjoy beating on the stupid and ignorant who are none the less smug and arrogant in their false certainty.