you posted nothing. yes, you posted the A2S1 line about the qualification, but nothing that states what a natural born citizen is or why the founders used that specific term at the time. (i suspect you omitted anything that may support your claim due to a lack of information... as your claim is baseless)
seriously, you need to stop posting. you’re single-handedly diminishing the quality of content on these boards. at least TRY to do the bare basic amount of background reading before spouting off.
here’s a local post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2713937/posts
which refers to the ‘Law of Nations’ (1757) which the founders would have referred to during their efforts.
in particular:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” - p.176
in short, a ‘natural born citizen’ is a citizen naturally... AS THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES. this is the reason the founders used the phrase... thereby insure, at least by birth, allegiance to the country.
seriously, you need to stop posting. you’re single-handedly diminishing the quality of content on these boards.Seriously, this is a thread about getting together at a tavern to watch the debate. Or, at least it was until you came here and peed all over it with your Birther nonsense.
Irregardless of the merit of your argument, your posts here are off topic. You owe an apology to everyone who's read this thread for your effort to hijack it.
Seriously, you need to get your OCD meds re-balanced.