I gave a very cogent reason for why people like DiogenesLamp (and you) indicate that you're idiots: Your major claims are completely and absolutely contradicted by an entire Who's Who of our top early US legal experts.
And still you cling to them, instead of clinging to what our Founders actually said and did. That's idiocy, and it's idiocy to a strong degree, my friend.
We have:
- William Rawle, who was pretty much a member of the core Founders' inner circle (because that's basically what Benjamin Franklin's Society for Political Enquiries was). Rawle was absolutely clear that you don't have to have citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen.
- The First Congress, together with President George Washington. Together these included almost half of the Signers of the Constitution. And they were quite clear that they wanted children born overseas to US parents to be "natural born citizens" and eligible to the Presidency, too.
- James Bayard. Bayard wasn't considered one of our top early legal experts, but his Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States was read and approved by those who were. No one seems to have ever said Bayard was wrong about the meaning of natural born citizen. And Bayard was absolutely clear that you didn't have to be born on US soil to be a natural born citizen, you only had to be born a citizen. His Exposition was read and applauded by the Great Chief Justice John Marshall, by the acclaimed Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, by the famous Chancellor James Kent, and other distinguished jurists. Bayard himself was the grandson of Richard Bassett, one of the 39 Signers of the Constitution and our official US Senator #1, the most senior Senator of the First Congress. He was also the son of James Bayard, Sr., who was known to his colleagues in Congress as "the High Priest of the Constitution." So Bayard was certainly in an ideal position to understand what "natural born citizen" meant.
- Vice Chancellor Lewis Sandford, who made a thorough investigation of what citizenship meant in 1844, and concluded that there could be no reasonable doubt that a US-born person without citizen parents would be eligible if elected President.
And although this is some of the clearest and starkest evidence that birthers are wrong, it's really only the beginning. There's plenty more, which has been discussed and presented ad nauseum already.
So this is the difference between you and me, pinhead. The actual evidence very clearly supports what I've said. So clearly, in fact, that it's not at all a stretch to say that DiogenesLamp is broadcasting his idiocy.
You, on the other hand, have no such clear evidence, but feel free to call someone else an idiot just because he disagrees with your own delusional opinion.