Replies

And since a person can be a natural born citizen (required) and a dual citizen (not forbidden) at the same time, dual citizens can be President.

You're wrong and you know it. At the time of the Constitution, English law, Blackwell and Vattel all stated that a natural born citizen was born to TWO citizen parents. You have NOTHING to refute that except lefty sites and your opinion.

From Yinger:

In this letter, dated July 25, 1787, Jay wrote:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen (emphasis in the original).(5)

The Founding Fathers were very concerned about foreign influence and went to great lengths to design a government that would be insulated from it.

Persons having foreign attachments will be sent among us & insinuated into our councils in order to be made instruments for their purposes. Every one knows the vast sums laid out in Europe for secret services. He was not singular in these ideas. A great many of the most influential men in Massts reasoned in the same manner.(22)

"You're wrong and you know it. At the time of the Constitution, English law, Blackwell and Vattel all stated that a natural born citizen was born to TWO citizen parents. You have NOTHING to refute that except lefty sites and your opinion."

Oh man, you garbled that one even worse than usual.

Blackstone (not Blackwell) said that the citizenship of the parents was irrelevant. And de Vattel said nothing on the subject at all.

As to the John Jay letter... it also says exactly nothing about two citizen parents.

Wasn't it you who just accused me of reaching for straws? ironic, don;t you think?

You will have to forgive EnderWiggins. It is kind of a slow day for him, so far he has made fifty posts which come up to over 25 pages when printed. He has done more on many of the days since he joined a month ago. At this time he appears to be Free Republic's most prolific Obama apologist. He is very willing stretch the truth to make his points. He of course refuses to give any coherent explanation as to why he believes the most powerful man in the world should be able to continue to keep nearly every verifiable document relating to his past sealed. Or how this fits Obama’s campaign promises to have the most “open” administration in modern history. You can check on EnderWiggins impressive amount of mischief by visiting:

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:enderwiggins/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change