I'm sorry, but I still disagree with your assessment of that chart. I've done enough reading on the subject to know that it's at odds with the Framers' understanding of the phrase, Natural Born Citizen.
Simple logic dictates that a person born on the soil of a country, to two citizen parents, will most likely have the greatest degree of unshakeable loyalty to the country of their birth. This is the fundamental point here, and is something which I believe the Framers easily processed with simple reasoning.
Further, I firmly believe that it was their intent to encode that simple logic and reasoning into our Constitution, in Article II, Section I of that document.
Using your understanding of the NBC clause, it would be just fine with the Framers if we put a man in the Oval Office who was raised outside this country and its history and culture, simply because he laid claim to having been born on our soil.
Wait.....oh my....we did that in 2008, didn't we?
Then you haven't done enough reading yet.
Depending on the amount of reading you've done, you might well disagree. If you do a lot more reading, including original sources, and what's been written on both sides, then you will see that every argument that you have believed is built on sand.
Simple logic dictates that a person born on the soil of a country, to two citizen parents, will most likely have the greatest degree of unshakeable loyalty to the country of their birth. This is the fundamental point here, and is something which I believe the Framers easily processed with simple reasoning.
Except they never said any such thing. On the contrary, Madison said that place of birth was what counted in the United States, and William Rawle, who met regularly with both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, two of our very top founders, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, was CRYSTAL CLEAR that "natural born citizen" INCLUDED the children born on US soil of ALIEN parents.
Crystal clear.
Also, as noted a few posts back, the "undivided loyalty" meme collapses completely. It's just a claim that birthers made, that the Founders had this goal of "undivided loyalty." it does NOT match history. It does NOT match what they said. It does NOT match what they did.
Further, I firmly believe that it was their intent to encode that simple logic and reasoning into our Constitution, in Article II, Section I of that document.
You're welcome to beleive whatever you like. You're welcome to believe that the Founding Fathers made George Washington King George I, or that John Adams invented the steamboat. All major authorities disagree with you.
Using your understanding of the NBC clause, it would be just fine with the Framers if we put a man in the Oval Office who was raised outside this country and its history and culture, simply because he laid claim to having been born on our soil.
That's precisely what they specified. Age 35, natural born citizen, 14 years a resident of the United States.
Now why do you think they said fourteen years? Why not FIFTEEN? Or TWENTY?
Why not some round number? Mmmmn?
I'll bet Mr Rogers can give a good guess... as to why, exactly, precisely...
FOURTEEN.