I was overly optimistic there; should have use the conditional "might" instead of "will".
I failed to take into account how long it took to get around to the Constitution. By that time, most of the prime actors (and their parents) were, indeed, "natural born". That makes me especially curious as to who they were "grandfathering in" -- at that late date...
'Twas worth a look, anyhoot (to paraphrase one or two of my favorite folk...)
;-)
I too am curious to know who was being grandfathered in by the language they used. Evidently they would not bother to include the language without reason. So if we discover the biography of their target we would have insight to what they meant was excluded with the term "natural born."
Yes, but here's the thing: they were natural-born Americans, but still British subjects/citizens up to the Revolution. In effect, the Revolution was (among other things) about repudiating the British doctrine of perpetual citizenship. It was a transfer of sovereignty from King George III to the American people themselves, under their already well-developed system of local self-government. Finally, this boils down to the question of one's principal loyalty.
The Revolution hit the "reset button" of citizenship. Had it failed, there would have been a whole lot of dead (American-born) British subjects. Our Founders were men with a price on their head. But miraculously, it all worked out. George eventually beat a retreat, and for the first time there was such a thing as United States citizenship.
The loyalty issue was a problem even during the war. There were two camps: the Loyalists (identifying as British subjects/citizens) and the revolutionaries (who of course wanted to separate from the British Crown). Benedict Arnold ended up being an inadvertent Loyalist....
In the main, citizenship entails the idea of loyalty to one's sovereign. We the People are the sovereignty. I wonder whether such an idea can move a BHO....
And that's the problem I have with him in a nutshell.
p.s.: I'm scratching my head, too, over who the Framers might have been "grandfathering in."
Two categories in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6: (1) natural born citizen; (2) or "a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."
It seems to me that (2) refers to the post-Revolutionary period, when the nation was still organized under the Articles of Confederation. Perhaps many people came over from Europe after the war, and became naturalized United States citizens in the pre-Constitution period? Anyhoot, category (2) is strictly time-delimited: "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."
It appears neither category applies to our sitting POTUS.
Thank you so very much for sharing your thoughts, TXnMA!