“Or, to put it into five very simple words:
They just weren’t that afraid [of people w foreign allegiances getting into the WH & purposefully destroying the country].”
Thank you, thank you, thank you JW. You finally made my point in such clear, irrefutable terms that even low information people can grasp it. Thank you!
You have said, in so many words, there was ZERO benefit to the Republic in allowing persons w foreign allegiance into the WH. ZERO.
Over against no advantage WHATSOEVER, we see the incalculable risk of allowing someone, such as BHO, to occupy the highest office in the land. W his self-stated primary allegiance to his non/anti-American foreign affiliation [which he came by via birth], he is ruling as an enemy agent, doing everything in his power to destroy the country he admits to hating. [He hates it as a direct result of his foreign allegiance. According to him, white man’s greed is the reason places like Kenya suffer. Had we not taken advantage of their people as slaves, we wouldn’t have wealth today. So of course we need to be divested of all our wealth & power, so it can be given back to Obama’s self-stated “true homeland”.]
Just in case you missed what you did, allow me to offer an analogy.
A leading medical research dr. is asked about a certain vaccine. It is cheap, risk-free, readily available, and 100 percent effective against a deadly disease. Yet the dr. refuses to receive the vaccination. He is asked, ‘What medical, health or other type of benefit is there to foregoing this vaccination?’
He says, ‘No benefit whatsoever. It’s just that I am not afraid’.
A short time later he contracts the disease & dies. So his one great ‘benefit’ (for eschewing the vaccination) was actually a fatal liability. His lack of fear directly brought about his death.
Yet you claim the Framers were wise & insightful enough to weigh the risk of an Obama-like traitor [i.e.: one who is an enemy agent precisely BECAUSE he has foreign allegiances via birth] & opted not to safeguard the Republic because “they just weren’t that afraid”.
Iow, they considered the potential destruction of the Republic no big deal.
The assertion is lunatic on its face.
But it does make my point w flying colors.
I.e.: there were only huge, major upsides to keeping those w divided loyalties out of the WH, and ZERO benefit to be gained by letting them in. [Unless of course you, like Obama, desire the destruction of the USA. Then it would look like a major plus, at least to you. Otherwise, face it: the Framers were just not that reckless or stupid.]
Thanks again for a job well done.
Not exactly.
First, I don't think the Framers thought they WERE allowing "persons with a foreign allegiance" into the White House.
I simply don't see any indication that they saw persons born on US soil, though their parents might not have naturalized, as having "a foreign allegiance."
Part of this may be due to the different world they lived in. The odds of a person born here going to the country of his or her parents' origin were virtually nil. That's at least a little bit different now.
Still, I KNOW people born here with immigrant parents. The kids grow up speaking English. And if they ever go to visit the parents' country of origin, even if they speak the language (and quite a few don't), they understand very quickly that that country is NOT "their" country.
And that's TODAY.
Secondly, I think that if the Constitution were worded the way you demand, that James Madison, at least, would feel that gave it a "tincture of illiberality."
And I base that statement on Madison's own words.
Third, even if there were a potential benefit to establishing a rule, it doesn't follow that the Founders MUST have established every rule that could POSSIBLY have a potential benefit.
I would say there would be a potential benefit to Constitutionally disallowing all persons with a felony conviction from being President. But the Founders didn't forbid that, either.