CpnHook, I am guessing you are some sort of stealth obot, perhaps just a zealot, but more likely an agent paid to spread your anti-American, anti-Constitution propaganda. You are too faux erudite to be a fogblower, so my best guess would be that you are a reincarnation of Dr. Conspiracy or another neo-marxist of similar ilk. The bottom line is that you can drop the pretense because you are not fooling anyone.
By the way, the founders did debate the details of the language of the Constitution, often down to the appropriateness of individual words. “Natural born Citizen” versus “born Citizen” was one of those cases. Plain “born Citizen” was specifically rejected in favor of the stronger inborn loyalty check provided by “natural born Citizen.”
To be merely born a citizen was not considered enough of barrier against a possible presidential aspirant with a strong foreign allegiance. For example, an anchor baby may be born here, but raised in a foreign land by parents neither of whom have taken an oath of sole (or any) allegiance to our Constitution. It is absurd beyond belief and an insult to the decency and intelligence of those who love the USA of our founding to suggest that such a tenuous quasi-denizen of our society could have been what the founders had in mind when they penned the phrase, “natural born Citizen,” yet many of your anti-American leftist brethren would have us believe just that.
There is no point in debating such enemies of the integrity of our nation, for their goal is to destroy our God-given freedom by any and every effective means. People such as you, Dr. Conspiracy (or whoever you really are), are simply to be opposed and defeated. Debate is pointless except where and when it serves to enlighten the understanding of muddle-headed low information type fellow citizens, who nevertheless are generally loyal to America and its values.
In spite of your equivocating bluster, my prior argument stands strong on its merits. The logic is simple and unassailable by the likes of you. To that I am happy to let the reader be the judge.
For it was two foreign born Monarchs in George 1st and George 2nd who ruled England in the 18th century. They were both Germans. The son of George 2nd was, of course George 3rd. (1738-1820). He was born in England. Only conjecture on my part, but such men caused strife and atrocities. They were however often the norm at the time for many powerful rulers.
I believe the Founding Fathers ruled that a person eligible should be born in the United States of American parents, who were citizens. Woodrow Wilson was queried because his mother was Scottish. It was found that according to United States laws, she then was given American citizenship on her marriage to Wilson Sr.
Excuse this ramble.
If I were truly stealth then you wouldn't see me at all. At least that's how I understand stealth technology to work.
. . . perhaps just a zealot, but more likely an agent paid to spread your anti-American, anti-Constitution propaganda.
So my pointing out that "natural born citizen" bears a striking linguistic similarity to "natural born subject," that those terms were used at times interchangeably in the pre-Constitution period, and that Alexander Hamilton indicated that Constitutional terms find their origin in predecessor English law (the Hamilton reference was a point I've made on this Board earlier, though not immediately to you) -- that these things are "anti-American, anti-Constitution propaganda?"
Wow. Such drama.
How about instead we say that these are just indisputable points of history?
History, rather than histrionics. You have the two terms confused.
By the way, the founders did debate the details of the language of the Constitution, often down to the appropriateness of individual words. “Natural born Citizen” versus “born Citizen” was one of those cases. Plain “born Citizen” was specifically rejected in favor of the stronger inborn loyalty check provided by “natural born Citizen.”
And your evidence of this "debate" of this "specific rejection" with the contemporaneous explanation that "natural born citizen" creates a "stronger inborn loyalty" is what exactly? I assert here you're just making this up.
Unlike with issues such as federalism, the powers of the respective government branches, slavery, etc., for which there is a record of extensive debate, the proposal and passage of "natural born citizen" comes to us near devoid of historical record. The few scant bits are found in external correspondence with no record of debate within the Convention chambers. And there is no record of anyone explaining some supposed difference between "born citizen" and "natural born citizen."
It is absurd beyond belief and an insult to the decency and intelligence of those who love the USA of our founding to suggest that such a tenuous quasi-denizen of our society could have been what the founders had in mind when they penned the phrase, “natural born Citizen,” yet many of your anti-American leftist brethren would have us believe just that.
Under the Constitution, a person could be born in the U.S. (to citizen parents), leave at age 14 for foreign lands for the next 21 years or more, and then return and be eligible to run for President of the U.S. Yes, it's true! That person --- who has spent the formative years of education, maturity into adulthood, and awareness of political values steeped in all manner of foreign influences -- would be, in the Framers' eyes, eligible for the Presidency despite all that pernicious foreign influence.
Yet supposedly (in your view) a person born here to parents who were (at the time) not yet naturalized, but who has lived in the U.S. for far more years than the person described in the prior paragraph and who has had a 100 percent U.S.-based education would be for the Framers an unthinkable possibility for the Presidency.
You confuse "eligibility" with "electability." Both persons described are eligible (so, too, arguably, is your foreign-raised "anchor baby" example). But the Framers in their wisdom left whether any of these persons should be elected to We the People.
There is no point in debating such enemies of the integrity of our nation, for their goal is to destroy our God-given freedom by any and every effective means. People such as you, Dr. Conspiracy (or whoever you really are), are simply to be opposed and defeated. Debate is pointless except where and when it serves to enlighten the understanding of muddle-headed low information type fellow citizens, who nevertheless are generally loyal to America and its values.
You get points for a nice rhetorical flourish. Your arguments are, however, easily dismantled. It's indeed a good time to exit the debate.
In spite of your equivocating bluster . .
Oh, there's no equivocating on my end. A central point is clear and unequivocal:
It defies logic to suppose a) that the Framers used the term "natural born citizen" to convey a previously-unused notion of "requiring two citizen parents," b) that they did so contrary to the previously accepted, interchangeable use of "natural born" by reference to "subject" and "citizen," and c) that they ascribed this "new" meaning to the English "natural born" while making absolutely no mention in the Constitutional debates or contemporaneous correspondence that is what they were doing.
Your supposed point that "born citizen" was changed to "natural born citizen" doesn't get you where you claim to be going, since "natural born" in the existing usage of up till that time hadn't ever held the meaning "of like parents." Of course, rather than address my point you retreat behind the camouflage of bluster and flag-waving.
To that I am happy to let the reader be the judge.
Or, even better, this being a point of Constitutional law, let judges be the judge. They have all so far taken the view I espouse.