They were citizens of France. We can argue about what that meant, but the fact is that they were legally citizens of France, while serving as United States Presidents.
As far as arguing about specifically what their particular citizenship meant, I doubt we would find terribly much in the way of information and precedent.
In fact, I think there is an excellent case to be made that someone who was made a citizen of a foreign country by an act of that nation's legislature AS AN ADULT had quite a bit more "allegiance" to that foreign country than someone who was assigned citizenship at birth as a baby, without ever having lived in the country or had any relationship with the people of that nation at all.
In any event, the Constitution does NOT say that dual citizens are disqualified from serving as President.
If the Constitution says what you claim it says, then North Korea could simply pass a law stating that all American citizens are North Korean citizens as well. Then nobody would be able to be elected President.
You state that I'm a "liar," yet you can't pinpoint a single "lie" I've ever told.
You state that my posts are "idiotic," yet it's YOUR theory that produces absurd results.
Not to mention its being completely against the entirety of our history and law.
Legally citizens of France? and we can argue about what that means or meant?
His convenient for you that someone is given homorary status that has no force of law and they could never find themselves under the jurisdiction thereof.
Why don’t you argue that someone being given the keys to the city actually is lord or potentate of said city.
They were never assigned citizenship and never took an oath of allegiance.
I don’t know if you are a lazy thinker,trying vainly to find relevance