Replies

...Tublecane completely left out the loyalty aspect.”

I didn’t leave it out, really, since it is the issue looming over the argument.
Really?! Oh, that's right...you used weasel words...

yes, but according to the logic of the argument your “only” is inapt. A previous poster was trying to argue that since we know the Framers were motivated by preventing people with questionable loyalty from being president they’d surely never allow eligibility for the sons of British subjects. Except we happen to know the sons of British subjects and men themselves born British subjects were eligible under the Grandfather Clause. Which, when you think about it, casts doubt on this whole question of intent.

Loyal men were allowed, not men with questionable loyalty.

“you used weasel words”

Like what, “questionable”? Gimme a break.

“Loyal men were allowed, not men with questionable loyalty.”

Ah, but according to certain original intenters on this thread, the intent to disallow people with split loyalties from being president alone is enough to establish that the Framers wouldn’t have written a constitution allowing the sons of British subjects to be president. That implies that the sons of British subjects are ipso facto of questionable loyalty.

My tactic, and my only point, really, was to point out that those covered by the Grandfather Clause—Washington, Adams, and all the rest until at least 35 years after ratification—were to the same extent sarcastically questioned in the previous post prima facie disloyal. In fact, more than that, they were not just the sons of British subjects; they were themselves born British subjects.

It was the original poster’s fault for not adding something like “disregarding those covered by the Grandfather Clause.” But even if he did, his point would be a weak one. Original intent arguments always are.

“Loyal men were allowed, not men with questionable loyalty”

By the way, it was the earlier poster’s point that the intent not to have president’s with dual allegiances meant that the Framers would exclude men with questionable loyalties up to the point of disallowing the sons of British subjects. This is a false inference, and is disproven by the fact that they explicitly allowed the sons of British subjects as well as British subjects from birth to serve as president under the Grandfather Clause.

My “questionable” was no weasel word. The entire point is that you intenters presume that dual allegiances from birth automatically mean questionable loyalty. It didn’t stop them from accepting Washington’s loyalty. He proved it by his works, which is all that I’d ask of born citizens like Obama. It’s not the Framers’ fault that the electorate was stupid enough to elect him.