I should apologize for not providing proper context.
I wasn't posting to you because of what you quoted. I posted to you because you did "offer words." You said:
"I have discovered that you cannot reason with people who have an agenda and these birthers certainly have an agenda. For the life of them they cannot see that they are adding things to the Constitution and the law that isn’t there and never was there."When you say "...and never was there," you are referring to original intent. This entire debate is about original intent. That's why people are scouring through the books that the Framers are known to have read, such as Vattel, Locke, Burke, and others.
As far as I know Paine had no direct input into the Constitution.
Neither did John Adams or Thomas Jefferson, but their letters and actions later in life are used to define original intent elsewhere in the Constitution (see Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" as an example). Why refer to the words of these Founders as legitimate sources, but not Paine who was actively writing on the matter at the time?
What Paine wrote about the original intent of the natural-born clause is clear: foreigners and half-foreigners were excluded from the presidency. In opposition to the definition of "foreigner" or "half a foreigner," Paine says that only someone with "a full natural connection with the country" can be president. That's as plain-meaning as it gets, and was the common understanding of the clause at the time. "Half a foreigner" was a person with one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent. A "full natural" person had two citizen parents.
You accuse others of "adding things to the Constitution and the law that isn't there." I'm asking you why you are blind to the contemporary facts that are there?
-PJ
You say, “I’m asking you why you are blind to the contemporary facts that are there?”
I say: Why are you blind to the quotations I put in my post? Many congressmen and senators discussed this very issue before implementing the 14th Amendment but you refuse to take it seriously. Why are you blind to the fact that no present day politician, conservative commentator, or judge will do what you want them to, i.e., acknowledge that you need citizen parents to be NBC? That ain’t gonna happen pal and you just dont get it. Why are you blind to the fact that Chester Arther was in the same situation and no action was taken? There is more than ample evidence that your definition of NBC is off the wall, cannot be proven by anyone. Do you expect me to believe that you can read the minds of the framers of the Constitution? You and all your ilk instead of PROVING the 2 citizen parent rule, attack, misquote and try to dazzle people with fanciful dreams. Several people in this thread and many more in other threads presented ample evidence to prove that 2 citizen parents are not required. You have presented nothing of substance. You mention names like Paine, Jefferson and Adams like that means something. Jefferson had nothing to say about citizenship and neither did Adams as far as I’m concerned. Both these men had great respect for England and it’s laws; they just didn’t like the unjust taxes and other issues. You make Vattel out to be some hero yet England and the rest of Europe ignored his wild ideas on citizenship. France doesn’t even subscribe to it. You people should do something constructive about voting Obama out, not beating this dead horse. If it isn’t written down it doesn’t exist and EVERYONE knows 2 citizen parents is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or U.S. law. Once again get a judge to go your way.