> By that strain of Birther "logic" blah, blah, blah ... What we've outline to you is fact. Listen, I know you may not like it. It may not fit in with your After-Birther talking points, as you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. But it is what it is.
In particular, the Court noted the Constitution's requirement that the President be a natural-born citizen, a condition whose meaning could be derived only by reference to English common law in existence at the time see US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), referencing Minor v. Happersett (1874). Again: "that the President be a natural-born citizen ... a condition whose meaning could be derived only by reference to English common law in existence at the time". That does NOT include a 20th century Immigration Act ... common law in existing at the end of the 18th century!
If you knew ANYTHING about the events surrounding the Framing, you'd know the 2nd and 3rd "Committee of Eleven" in 1787 actually considered THREE Executives to have a strong, internal set of Executive "Checks and Balances." See, they were a little concerned about a single President usurping power like King George III (rather ironic with Obama in 2010). The problem the delegates in 1787 had envisioning THREE Executors, however, was Executive responsiveness in a crisis. The delegates ALSO considered requiring Senators to be "Natural Born Citizens" as well (which Massachusetts recommended to Congress in 1798). The 1787 delegate compromise, however, was to lessen the citizenship requirements of Senator, while strengthening that of the SINGLE Executor. For the office of President, the Framers felt that a SINGLE Executor who had unquestionable loyalty was the best way to hedge against infiltrators, or as John Jay put it, the "admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government." The Framers had good reason to be so paranoid between 1776 and 1789, monarchs like Prince Henry of Prussia, and the Bishop of Osnaburgh (2nd son of George III), tried to invite themselves to become Americas new king.
... what does Blackstone's Commentaries say in regards to British subjects, Allegiance and "service to two masters" (i.e., Dual Citizenship)?
|
The 12th amendment, adopted in 1804, says "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
Not quite. The NBC requirement also applies to the Vice President, according to the last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment:
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.