That's stupid too. Nobody's arguing that the Framers recommended electing a president with foreign parents. Just that they didn't forbid it.
They were either for it or aqainst it. According to your interpretation they were for it. That is too insane a proposition even for you, so you try to parse your way out of it.
They were obviously against it, for obvious reasons. What Obama has done was entirely foreseeable & predictable. The Framers foresaw it and excluded him from the WH. You misunderstand their intent, and look where it gets you. Trying ILLOGICALLY to argue there is no causal connection between Obama’s foreign allegiances and his purposeful destruction of the country he hates.
Talk about stupid....
Pardon the butting in, but the entire purpose of the Constituion was to limit the power of government. The 10th Amendment is the expression of this fact.
If the Framers had written down everything forbidden.....
Well, let's just say it would have taken up a lot more parchment than it does now.
It's called the Rule of Exclusion, and its roots probably go back past even English law.
• § 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation , 1833