[Tublecane]

“Notice, Larry - Moe and Curly, that Tublecane completely left out the loyalty aspect.”

I didn’t leave it out, really, since it is the issue looming over the argument. My larger point is that you can’t assume disloyalty on the basis of being born to British subjects. Nor, furthermore, does being born yourself a British subject. Certianly our Framers weren’t afraid of extending eligibility to such persons, as made obvious by the Grandfather Clause.

Bringing up merely muddies the issue. He wasn’t going to run for president, nor would he ever be elected, so it’s moot point.

[philman_36]

...Tublecane completely left out the loyalty aspect.”

I didn’t leave it out, really, since it is the issue looming over the argument.
Really?! Oh, that's right...you used weasel words...

yes, but according to the logic of the argument your “only” is inapt. A previous poster was trying to argue that since we know the Framers were motivated by preventing people with questionable loyalty from being president they’d surely never allow eligibility for the sons of British subjects. Except we happen to know the sons of British subjects and men themselves born British subjects were eligible under the Grandfather Clause. Which, when you think about it, casts doubt on this whole question of intent.

Loyal men were allowed, not men with questionable loyalty.