Replies

Listen precisely to what you`re attempting to argue. You are trying to tell us that the Founders made a clear and exact distinction, FOR NO REASON !

You expect a rational person to accept that a distinction is not a distinction, AT ALL.

The Founders found no need to extrapolate merely because everyone clearly understood the simple idea and fundamentals.

John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Vattel`s Law of Nations, “...natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. “

THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, “...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...”

FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states, “...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens...”

Keep telling us the CLEAR DISTINCTION is not a distinction.