No, he's been asserting that there is no Jus Sanguinis requirement for citizenship. Once again, your side has a real problem distinguishing between necessary and sufficient conditions.
the Initial drafts of Article II which was submitted by Alexander Hamilton and which required that one be merely "born a citizen" was voted down in favor of the current language....If they wanted the version you describe here, why change the Hamilton proposal?
There is no evidence that Hamilton's draft was ever presented to the convention, much less "voted down" as you claim. He did describe his ideas for the Constitution, which included a president for life as well as other features the delegates rejected. But according to the U.S. Archives, there was no draft until August, well after Jay's letter:
In none of the relatively meager records of the Constitutional Convention is the literary authorship of any part of the Constitution definitely established. The deputies debated proposed plans until, on July 24, 1787, substantial agreement having been reached [note: the day before Jay wrote his letter], a Committee of Detail was appointed...who on August 6 reported a draft which included a Preamble and twenty-three articles, embodying fifty-seven sections. Debate continued until September 8, when a new Committee of Style was named to revise the draft....they reported the draft in approximately its final shape on September 12.In short, there's no evidence that "born a citizen" was rejected in favor of "natural born citizen," so no evidence that they don't mean exactly the same thing (no evidence from the Constitutional Convention, at any rate).
That is of course EXACTLY what I've been asserting.
DL claims to be so smart. But he can't even accurately identify what sensible people are talking about.
There is no evidence that Hamilton's draft was ever presented to the convention, much less "voted down" as you claim.
Once again, another false claim by DiogenesLamp, among so many. You are exactly correct: Hamilton's "born a citizen" language was never presented to the Convention. It only came to light at the end of the convention, when he handed in the notes he had been privately keeping so that they could be preserved for the historical record.
But hey, it's another idiot birther assertion that seems to support the argument, so let's throw it onto the manure wagon. Ahem, I mean the brown gold wagon.
In short, there's no evidence that "born a citizen" was rejected in favor of "natural born citizen," so no evidence that they don't mean exactly the same thing (no evidence from the Constitutional Convention, at any rate).
This is exactly correct. Will birthers like DL ever give up the claim? Hell, no. They will file it away, knowing it's as bogus as hell, to bring it up again on some other day. Just as they've done with every other debunked, bogus argument.
My side believes in a Conservative and restrictive view which would successfully curtail abuses and prevent foreign influence in the Executive branch.
Your side advocates a policy of Foolishness, and my side is advocates a policy of common sense.
In short, there's no evidence that "born a citizen" was rejected in favor of "natural born citizen," so no evidence that they don't mean exactly the same thing (no evidence from the Constitutional Convention, at any rate).
My checking says Hamilton Submitted it to the Convention. It is not plausible to believe they didn't read it, and having read it, did not chose to either accept it or amend it. Hamilton was of sufficient social stature to assure his proposals would be considered.
It is possible that they saw Hamilton's version of Article II to be sufficiently similar as to what they already had written so as to make it not worthy of re-writing to include it.
I'll concede the point.