First of all, the point was that if the Founders and Framers and their generation had been so concerned as you claim, to eliminate "any possible foreign influence," they would never have tolerated a situation where 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens with another country while serving as President.
You can claim the French citizenship of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison was "just honorary." Here's what a contemporary of Washington, Jefferson and Madison had to say:
"According to the usages and understanding of all nations a man may have all the rights of a naturalized citizen or subject in his adopted country, and yet retain all his relations, civil and political, in his native country. For instance, the Marquis La Fayette was naturalized in the United States, but retained every such relation to France. So Mr. Jefferson was naturalized in France and there made a French citizen, and had he gone there would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen, but he certainly retained all his relations to the United states, his rights and duties as a native citizen, and was in fact after such naturalization, elected President of the United States." - Nathan Dane, LL.D. Counsellor at Law, A General Abridgment and Digest of American Law: With Occasional Notes and Comments, in Eight Volumes (1833).
"So Mr. Jefferson was naturalized in France and there made a French citizen, and had he gone there would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen..."
Gee. That sounds like a real citizen of France to me. And the French citizenship of George Washington and James Madison was exactly the same.
The point is good.
As for your current claim: Technically they were exempt from the NBC requirement, but they didn't have to be.
Fallacy: "The inclusion of that exemption [the "grandfather clause" of Presidential eligibility] for the Founding Generation was necessary, as the only Natural Born Citizens in America at that time, were newly born infants. Not a single American, 35 or older, would have qualified as President, without the existence of that exemption."
Once again, you spin more fallacies.
The grandfather clause was never passed for the purpose of making George Washington eligible. The sole reason it was passed was for making people like James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton, who weren't natural born citizens of the Colonies that would become the United States, eligible.
Here's how the grandfather clause has always been understood, throughout history. I'll start with an exposition by legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in 1833:
“It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country….” United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833)
“The exception as to those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, was justly due to those men who had united themselves with the fate of the new nation, and rendered eminent services in achieving its independence ; and is, necessarily, of limited continuance.” James Bayard, A brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 96 (1833)
“Why was this exception then made ? From gratitude to those distinguished foreigners who had taken part with us during the Revolution.” John Seely Hart, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 71 (1860)
“The idea then arose that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for the office of president; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business proposed, on the fourth of September, that ” no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the tune of the adoption of this constitution, should be eligible to the office of president.” George Bancroft, History of the formation of the Constitution of the United States of America pg 346 (1866)
“The exception in favor of such persons of foreign birth as were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is now practically extinct. The distinguished patriots who had so faithfully served their adopted country during the revolutionary struggle, and out of respect and gratitude to whom this exception was introduced into the Constitution, have all passed away. No one, therefore, but a natural born citizen can now be elected to the office of President.” Henry Flanders, An Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1877)
“The exception to the “natural born” qualification was the Convention’s way of paying an extraordinary compliment to Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson, two distinguished members of the Convention who were foreign born. Of course, any other foreign- born citizen having the other qualifications would have been eligible, but the clause was drawn in favor of the two statesmen here mentioned.” Edward Waterman Townsend, Our Constitution: Why and how it was Made – who Made It, and what it is pg 186 (1906)
This understanding is also confirmed by James Madison's reasoning in the Smith case. He said, in essence, that Smith had been a citizen of the community that would become the State of South Carolina since his very birth:
I conceive the colonies remained as a political society, detached from their former connection with another society, without dissolving into a state of nature; but capable of substituting a new form of government in the place of the old one, which they had for special considerations abolished. Suppose the state of South Carolina should think proper to revise her constitution, abolish that which now exists, and establish another form of government: Surely this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at liberty to arrange. Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society with respect to the question of independence and change of government; and if afterward he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor.
So once again (as is typical of birthers) you display your ignorance, or your willful rejection, of our history and our law.
By the way, Nathan Dane wasn't just some random lawyer. He was so influential that he was called "the Father of American Jurisprudence." Harvard's Law School was named after him. And the work that I cite was:
"'the first systematic treatise covering the entire field of American law.' It became a standard work, and every lawyer of distinction bought a copy."
So when Nathan Dane says the dual citizenship of President Jefferson (and by extension, the identical dual citizenship of George Washington and James Madison) was truly dual citizenship, we can believe him.
All of this totally blows the unhistorical, imaginary birther premise, that the Founding Fathers were so fanatically concerned about "pure allegiance" that they wouldn't tolerate the slightest hint of "divided allegiance," out of the water.
No wonder you're in such a tizzy over this subject. You obviously can't comprehend plain English.
The first sentence of Clause 5, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President...." means what it says, and nothing more.
Any person who was a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted, and who met the other two qualifications expressed therein, would have been eligible to hold the office. That includes Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and every other Framer who was born in America prior to its incorporation as an independent nation state.
None of those men were natural born citizens, as the country didn't exist at the time of their birth.
They understood this - why can't you? Oh that's right. It's because to understand it, you'd have to admit that your boss isn't eligible to hold the office of President.
You're tiresome, Fogblower. You understand all of the arguments that have been presented to you, but you're in flat out denial, and reject even the most ironclad logic, facts, and reason on the subject. Any honest, rational person, would have conceded the argument long ago, but you can't, because you're on a mission to protect Obama and sow seeds of doubt and discord amongst conservatives.
I've got your number, and so does every other Freeper who's crossed swords with you. You're a paid infiltrator, plain and simple. Spit at me if you like, but we've seen your kind before, and we know how this all ends.
“So once again (as is typical of birthers) you display your ignorance”
Typical fogbower response.