[TXnMA]

"Off the top of my head, I suppose many of the Framers were British-, Irish-, or Scots-born, or children thereof. But they had invested their own blood, treasure, and sacred honor in their new nation; so earned their "natural-born status" thataway."

Au contraire, Madame!

You missed the "power" of my point: They recognized and acknowledged that they, themselves were not natural born (and never could be...) -- therefore, they "grandfathered themselves in" -- to "get around" the "natural born" requirement they had just codified in the Constitution.

If we can determine the birth status of our earliest Presidents, we will have some de facto examples of what "natural born" IS NOT.

And, if one of them matches Øbama's situation, then the case is closed; he is not qualified -- no matter how many fools voted for him and "gave him a pass".

~~~~~~~~~

I agree with you on Arthur. However, IIRC, his "natural born" status was not questioned until after he had served his one term...

[betty boop]

You missed the "power" of my point....

No I didn't; not necessarily. I thought I was just enlarging it, expanding it. :^) Metaphorically, so to speak. The Muse was speaking.... LOL!

I had not, of course, done any of my "homework" on the geneologies of the Framers at that time. I'm tickled to learn that George Washington was a natural-born citizen of the United States of America. And I daresay, so was Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and a bunch of the others. :^)

Maybe we need to narrow our search to those who did not have two American citizen parents, and see if any one of those persons ever became president.

I figure: That sort of thing does not happen.

Except for "the exceptions that prove the rule": Chester A. Arthur and BHO.

You wrote:

I agree with you on Arthur. However, IIRC, his "natural born" status was not questioned until after he had served his one term....

Well if that's so, then all I can say is: better late than never!

However, some sources suggest that this issue was publicly topical during his presidency. Jury's still out for me.

You wrote:

If we can determine the birth status of our earliest Presidents, we will have some de facto examples of what "natural born" IS NOT.

Call me a blockhead, but on preliminary findings, I'd say our earliest presidents are de facto examples of exactly what "natural-born" actually, really IS. So how can they show you what it IS NOT?

Jeepers, I must be missing something here.

Thank you so very much, dear brother in Christ, for your scintillating and thought-provocative essay/post!