A pity that John Jay never said that though. Still how can we argue with Birther logic?
Rest assured, You are not alone in belittling Americans who know the law by calling them “birthers”.
The truth remains: He is the first to assume the presidency, after the founders, with numerous claims to citizenship rights to multiple countries. The NBC clause is there to stop this exact situation.
John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Barack Obama admits to being a foreigner — he admits to being a citizen of Kenya and a British subject.
"It would appear that A Natural Born Citizen -- born in country by citizen parents (Plural)-- would be the logical answer to the above question."
NS wrote:
pity that John Jay never said that though.
___________________________________________________________
It's a "pity" that John Bingham pretty much does (see post # 29):
Bingham states:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill],which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents{PLURAL} not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…"
(John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866)
It's not "birther" logic.
It's called an inference:
inference:
Logic.
a. the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.
b. the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.
STE=Q