That's a nice theory, but not one Framer or any other major authority of the early United States EVER said that was the case.
In fact, the major authorities of the early United States absolutely contradict the claim - starting with President George Washington and the First Congress, which included close to half of the Signers of the Constitution.
At the time the Framers wrote NBC into the Constitution there was no dual citizenship. A person held allegiance to one flag and one flag only unless they were without a country.
Not true. The Supreme Court in 1795 - less than 10 years after the Constitution - recognized the existence of dual citizenship:
“...in the present cause, there being no proof, that Captain Talbot’s admission as a citizen of the French Republic, was with a view to relinquish his native country; and a man may, at the same time, enjoy the rights of citizenship under two governments.”
- Chief Justice Rutledge in Talbot v. Janson 3 U.S. 133
Moreover, 3 of our first 4 Presidents held French citizenship... while serving as President.
Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.
Not that I'm recommending being a dual citizen while President. But they did it.
Mark Levin commented on a recent show about what he thinks of ‘Birthers’ and it is not good. He thinks they are obsessed. He thinks Birther talk about Cruz is crazy.
Mark Levin knows the Constitution like few other men. He is committed to the Constitution like few other men. He is a conservative, through and through. And he is right.
Mark Levin also said today he hasn’t studied the area of NBC and that he gave his opinion. Levin brought up the subject because someone was harassing him about it and a lead in to Cruz and before this story broke.
> “In fact, the major authorities of the early United States absolutely contradict the claim - starting with President George Washington and the First Congress, which included close to half of the Signers of the Constitution.”
It’s obvious you haven’t read the Constitution or you have reading comprehension problems.
Here it is again marked for you:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, ***or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution***, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The marked phrase takes care of those that signed the Constitution or became President and were not natural born citizens.
The above blows away your criticism, in other words you are invalidated. No sympathy for you as all you had to do before stepping in your own stink was read before engaging whatever there is between your ears.
And don’t be so quick to kiss Mark’s *ss. he’s fallible and was not so long ago against an Article V movement. But Freepers including yours truly have been posting/advocating for Article V since Obamacare was passed and long before Mark got the Article V bug, and we had a Professor of Constitutional Law Randy Barnett back us up on it. Randy is more astute than Levin but both are fine. But we were ahead of the game before Mark came along to write his book.
Yes he does, but he has his own set of prejudices just like the rest of us. He choose to ignore the plain fact that the Framers defined exactly what a Natural Born Citizen was and distinguished themselves as a separate category of Citizen, but declared themselves to be eligible to serve as President, by virtue of being Citizens at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution.