> “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.
No, the problem is that I have read and studied the Constitution, the history and the law EXTENSIVELY by this point, and you haven't. You don't know jack about it.
And for some reason, people who don't know jack about a subject think that they're the experts, and that those who've now studied it in every detail are "ignorant."
“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.”
Yes, I've read it, many times. I've read what's been written about it. Extensively.
The marked phrase takes care of those that signed the Constitution or became President and were not natural born citizens.
Sorry, but James Madison, Father of the Constitution, talked about the nature of citizenship in the early United States, and he disagrees with you.
So does every historian in American history who has ever commented on the matter.
You know, the people who dedicate their lives to history and do this for a living? Instead of just posing as know-it-alls on the web?