Agreed
The question, to me, is who became a natural born citizen via the ratification of the Constitution and who was already a natural born citizen via the Declaration of Independence? Who were the "gap" citizens?
What difference might that have on today's reading of the Const? I do not believe either document altered or influenced the definition of NBC.
At the founding of the nation, the citizenship of their parents was irrelevant -- all original citizens were, by definition, natural born..
With that one could conclude you do not believe NBC requires parent citizens; in effect we are arguing different issues.
Where I believe your statement that I cited at the top is misguided (and your whole post, frankly) is the notion that "they became citizens" via this clause in the Constitution.
You are correct, it was a poor choice of words. It should have read “their citizenship was recognized during the Constitutional Convention.
Think of it this way: the Constitution has a ban on "ex post facto" laws…
Therefore, this exception to the "natural born citizen" requirement was necessary to keep it from becoming an ex post facto punishment to recent citizens who were governed under the Articles of Confederation and the constitutions of the several states.
IMO, not relevant because the latter documents had no laws regarding the creation of a federal presidency. Those earlier citizens had no vested interests, etc.
The "natural born citizen" requirement to become President would only be fully operative to people born in the United States after June 21, 1788.
Agreed (after stripping "fully" and correcting the date to the last day of the Convention.
Now let’s go to perhaps the core of your argument. You state:
At the founding of the nation, the citizenship of their parents was irrelevant –
Bear in mind that we had just concluded a bloody and expensive war with England, that our countryside's were full of subjects yet loyal to the Crown with long family histories, along with that John Jay’s July 25, 1787 letter to G Washington during the Convention warning of the need to avoid foreign influence.
That letter reportedly triggered an expansion of the Art II eligibility clause from “citizen” alone to include the NBC clause.
In your opinion, has parental citizenship of our nation’s Commander-in-Chief ever been relevant?
You are applying a too narrow context to my statement.
I said "At the founding of the nation..." My point was that "everyone" was a natural born citizen at that time and so parental claims were irrelevant AT THAT TIME.
IMO, not relevant because the latter former documents had no laws regarding the creation of a federal presidency. Those earlier citizens had no vested interests, etc.
It is relevant because whether the citizens knew they had an interest or not, it was there. The Constitution had to be self-consistent; it could not ban ex post facto laws and then include an ex post facto law. People who were citizens prior to the ratification of the Constitution were grandfathered into the natural born citizen qualification for President, even if they were first generation children of immigrant parents.
...and correcting the date to the last day of the Convention.
No, I was correct. The Constitution specifically says "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," not the conclusion of the Convention. The Constitution was signed in convention on September 17, 1987 but wasn't ratified by the states until June 21, 1788 after New Hampshire ratified it.
In your opinion, has parental citizenship of our nation’s Commander-in-Chief ever been relevant?
I refer you back to my earlier statement. I was speaking about the first seven Presidents and anyone who was a citizen at the Founding. If you want to take my point further, all living "parents" became natural born, too, because they were also original citizens.
Honestly, I take this last quote of yours as a taunt. Surely you read my earlier post about land being a proxy for parentage in the early days of restricted travel. Surely you've read my prior posts on all the other NBC threads where I cited Thomas Paine's writings about the natural born citizen requirement in his 1791 book The Rights of Man, and surely you're familiar with my posts on the Preamble that lays out the thinking of the Framers regarding ensuring the security of ourselves and our Posterity, so you should already be familiar with my position on the natural born citizen requirement.
-PJ