Replies

"No, the Framers were talking about Allegiance, Loyalty. The POTUS had to have only ONE Allegiance. The old Precedent Case for Article II was United States v. Rhodes and in that Case Justice Swayne said, “All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural- Born subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this Country…since as before the Revolution.”

Swayne was quoting the Precedent of English Common Law and Justice Sir William Blackstone, who said: “And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.”

Blackstone states unequivocally that Dual Nationality is IMPOSSIBLE as a condition, you can only have ONE Allegiance. Chief Justice Jay believed that and so did every one of the Framers. The fact that we don’t see things that way today isn’t the point. They did, and it means that someone with Dual Nationality is Ineligible by definition. That Law has stood as a principle since 1337 and before.

US Law says nothing about Dual Nationality at all, it simply accepts that some people have it, but if Naturalized Citizens cannot be POTUS because they have previously had another Allegiance, and that is exactly why they can’t, then Dual Nationals can’t either, in fact there is less excuse for them."

On July 25th, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, then Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention:

"“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The Convention agreed and without debate the provision suggested by Jay was written into the Constitution.

That Jay’s advice was taken is not surprising because in his career Jay was President of the Continental Congress, Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court, 1st Chief Justice of the United States, Ambassador to Spain and France, Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Secretary of State) and Governor of New York, among other things. He wasn’t a man whose advice could be ignored. Note that what particularly concerned Jay was not a political issue but a military issue arising because the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. He was bothered by issues of National Security."