Replies

It’s obvious you haven’t read the Constitution or you have reading comprehension problems.

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?

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.

And you keep on getting it deliberately wrong.

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."

You are WORSE than ignorant. You decided before you started what it was going to mean, and you look at NOTHING except stuff you can twist into supporting your predetermined meaning. You aren't interested in the truth. You are only interested in pushing the Establishment party line, and I suspect it's because you WORK FOR THEM.

I think you are in the employ of a Republican Official. You have either been tasked with, or tasked yourself with Damage control for all the not quite qualified Republican Candidates that seem to have floated up to the top of the que.

Yes, I've read it, many times. I've read what's been written about it. Extensively.

And all of it wrong and misleading.

Sorry, but James Madison, Father of the Constitution, talked about the nature of citizenship in the early United States, and he disagrees with you.

And his actions as President Completely disagree with YOU. He supported Ambassador Armstrong's (Also a Delegate) Determination that James McClure's citizenship was in doubt until further papers could be provided from South Carolina.

Birth in Charleston was NOT SUFFICIENT to convey American Citizenship. John Armstrong made this determination and James Madison Backed him up on it!

James Madison even wrote to the Alexandria Hearald under his well known pseudonym "Publius."

So does every historian in American history who has ever commented on the matter.

And then you CONSTANTLY make this False Claim that EVERY AUTHORITY IN HISTORY AGREES WITH YOU, when it is demonstrably false. In fact, very FEW "authorities" in history agree with you, and most of them are After William Rawle wrote his misleading book.

Those that actually know what they are talking about? I'm not aware that you have ANY. Of All I can recall you having mentioned, I don't recall any delegates among them.

Most of your alleged support comes from ex post facto lawyers merely repeating British-trained lawyer drivel. Actual Authorities who were there and know what it means? I can't recall your having mentioned any.