I’m a long way from an idiot.
You, however, are an utterly self-absorbed individual who’d throw the entire country under the bus rather than admit you were wrong and that you lied to your children.
The first natural born citizen President was Martin Van Buren, born 1782, an acknowledged fact of very long standing.
George Washington was a Founder of this nation, an original citizen and our first President under the Constitution. He was born on English soil as Virginia was under the jurisdiction of England at the time. He was not magically transmogrified retroactively into a natural born citizen of the United States, as the United States wouldn’t exist for going on a half-century later.
Step away from all this emoting and rationalizing, and just listen to yourself. You’re making no logical sense whatsoever, and now you’re descending into childish name-calling.
Be an adult, just admit your mistakes and move on.
“The first natural born citizen President was Martin Van Buren, born 1782, an acknowledged fact of very long standing.”
Fine. Prove it. I’m sure there were contemporaneous accounts, celebrating that we FINALLY had a NBC for President. Quote one.
Don’t give me some birther drivel written in 2008. Cite a contemporary case.
Indeed, show any case where someone who had been a NBS in the colonies was held to NOT be a NBC in the US, unless he left the country after the war.
"§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source."
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_5s2.html
During the ratifying in New York several amendments to the Constitution were proposed. These included:
"Moved by Mr. G. LIVINGSTON. SATURDAY, July 5, 1788. — Sec. 2. Clause 2. Amendment moved by Mr. M. SMITH: —
"Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, that the Congress should appoint, in such manner as they may think proper, a council to advise the President in the appointment of officers; that the said council should continue in office for four years; that they should keep a record of their proceedings, and sign the same, and always be responsible for their advice, and impeachable for malconduct in office; that the counsellors should have a reasonable allowance for their services, fixed by a standing law; and that no man should be elected a counsellor who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and who is not either a natural-born citizen, or has not become a citizen before the 4th day of July, 1776."
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ny.htm
"That no Persons except natural born Citizens, or such as were Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six, or such as held Commissions under the United States during the War, and have at any time since the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six become Citizens of one or other of the United States, and who shall be Freeholders, shall be eligible to the Places of President, Vice President, or Members of either House of the Congress of the United States." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asp
The first resolution did not make it into the final ratification document, while the second proposed amendment was in the final document sent to Congress.
Both John Jay and Alexander Hamilton were members of the New York ratifying convention.
So my question is - who specifically would be considered "a citizen before the 4th day of July" or "Citizens on or before the fourth day of July one thousand seven hundred and seventy six"?
Who are they talking about?
I thought there were no "citizens" before July 4th, 1776 only "subjects".