Well, the SC intimated this, but pure logic would tell you that a dual (with divided allegiances)would not be a “natural born” citizen...He might be a citizen but to ascend to the higher standard the framers felt was necessary for the president he could not have conflicts of interest. I am sure you can quibble with all kinds of legalese, but legalese does not equate to common sense.
“but pure logic would tell you that a dual (with divided allegiances)would not be a ‘natural born’ citizen”
No, it wouldn’t. First of all because being a dual citizen is not the only way to have divided loyalties. This is something blood righters confuse all the time. Yes, the purpose of the natural born clause was to prevent people with foreign loyalties from being commander-in-chief. But it does not follow that natural born must necessarily mean no possibility of divided loyalties.
They chose to limit the presidency to citizens at birth, because they thought that’d do the trick. If I were to say that somehow we must interpret natural born as something more than citizen at birth simply because the framers were really, really worried about loyalty, why not insist the loyalty has to go back to previous generations? Why not four citizen grandparents? Foreign grandparents can have a large impact on their grandchildren, doncha know.
At this point, I’m sure, you’ll back away from “logic” and rest on historical understanding, saying the evidence shows the founders knew natural born to mean by right of blood. Per Vattel, or whoever. That’s when I swoop in and remind you the Constitution is a living document, and that it has been amended, and that since the 14th amendment soil babies are citizens at birth, and therefore are natural born citizens.
Secondly, because nowehere in U.S. law are dual citizens recognize as a special class. They are in every way the legal equivalent of the children of two citizens. It is as if the other loyalty doesn’t even exist in the eyes of our government.