[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Well, sure he's made that claim. What he hasn't done (as others in this debate have) is to make a convincing argument for why the Framers would have considered that to be a sufficient citizenship pedigree for the office of President.

But that was my point--he's arguing what they did, not why they did it. If in fact they did what he says, it doesn't matter why.

[Windflier]

But that was my point--he's arguing what they did, not why they did it.

Point taken, but the point I'm making is that he's not engaging anyone in discussion about the topic. Others post citations, and offer logical, reasoned arguments to make the opposite case he's attempting to make.

If a person can't answer a simple question that goes to the heart of the matter, then he's little more than a robot who doesn't have the intellectual capacity to process the meaning of things.

Posting walls of citations doesn't prove anything, as any one of us can produce equivalent walls of citations to back up our contentions. In the end, you can't prove your contention by merely cutting and pasting selected excerpts of court decisions and historical quotes.