Replies

You must at the very least concede that there was absolutely NO Act, law or provision for dual citizenship at the time the Constitution was signed. It did not exist as an OPTION.

Yet another misconception. Dual citizenship does not disqualify a person from being President. In fact...

According to the usages and understanding of all nations a man may have all the rights of a naturalized citizen or subject in his adopted country, and yet retain all his relations, civil and political, in his native country. For instance, the Marquis La Fayette was naturalized in the United States, but retained every such relation to France. So Mr. Jefferson was naturalized in France and there made a French citizen, and had he gone there would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen, but he certainly retained all his relations to the United States, his rights and duties as a native citizen, and was in fact after such naturalization, elected President of the United States."

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and our third President, was a dual citizen when elected President of the United States. There is no record that he ever repudiated his French citizenship, so he was a dual citizen of the United States and France while he was serving as President.

A General Abridgement and Digest of American Law, published 1824.

This "undivided loyalty" requirement that birthers are fond of talking about DID NOT EXIST.

They only wanted to guard against royalty native to other countries sweeping in and taking over.

They didn't even require the President to spend more than 14 years of his LIFE on American soil.

Well, then. Back to the original wording of the US Constitution: ““unless he now be a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

That was changed.

Cruz is a dual citizen. Dual citizenship is not OFFICIALLY a class of citizenship in the US, it never has been. THERE IS NO US LAW which officially recognizes dual citizenship.

We are discussing US laws here, right? Not some “honorary citizenship”.

You SHOW US a US law that states we have provisions for dual citizenship as a official class of US citizenship.

US CITIZENSHIP. Was Mr. Jefferson BORN a dual citizen? NO.

CCLXXXVIII.: Charles Pinckney in the United States Senate. 1 – Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 3 [1911]

"They [the framers] well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes [as presidential electors] in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible"

Well, considering that Charles Pinckney's signature is on the U.S. Constitution, I would think that he'd know what he's talking about.

Reading it as is, my comprehension of what he's saying is that maturity, along with loyalty to the United States, is of paramount importance and, as such, guided the Framers in drafting all the requirements for the office of President.

Ergo, I think the birthers are on the right track concerning this one.

Just my two-bits worth. Take it or leave it.

Cheers!

Now Jeff, here you are going off the rails. Firstly, Thomas Jefferson was eligible by operation of the grandfather clause. Secondly upon becoming an American, he was no longer a French citizen as far as American Law was concerned. He may have been one according to French law, but the United States does not recognize as binding foreign citizenship laws as applied to American citizens.

They only wanted to guard against royalty native to other countries sweeping in and taking over.

Yes they did, and how do you guard against this if the only requirement was to be behind our border when the child emerges? Seems like a hole in their thinking. Every Royal in Europe could birth their children behind our lines without affecting their ruling status in their home countries.

What you are arguing is that Article II serves a purpose for which it is powerless to affect. (i.e. pointless.)