Because he is a CITIZEN due to a NATURALIZATION ACT?
WAY WAY beyond stupid.
Oh that's right, "every major commentator" so it must be true. Never mind.
WAY WAY beyond stupid.
I've often observed the idiocy of birthers. Just another example.
Those who WROTE THE CONSTITUTION obviously understood that a person born a citizen outside of the United States could be made eligible to the Presidency through a "Naturalization Act," SINCE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SPECIFIED IN THE FIRST CONGRESS.
This, incidentally, is pretty much how things had long been: They got the term "NATURAL BORN" from the English and American common law. THE TERM APPEARED NOWHERE ELSE IN LAW OR IN LANGUAGE, OTHER THAN IN THE ENGLISH AND AMERICAN COMMON LAW.
Historically, all persons born in the country were automatically "natural born" subjects. Parliament had always been able to additionally declare (and had done so before) which persons born abroad were ALSO to be included in that category of persons.
So whether you, in your stunning brilliance, think the idea is "WAY WAY beyond stupid," the FOUNDING FATHERS AND SIGNERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION DID NOT THINK SO. A full 40% of those who SIGNED our Constitution were in on the passage of that law. So the FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION obviously signed off on the idea.
Oh. And the FOUNDING FATHERS said it. SO IT'S TRUE.
That's the difference between Constitutionalists and birthers. CONSTITUTIONALISTS RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS. BIRTHERS don't.
Not to mention, “WAY WAY beyond stupid.”
Which means that YOU, sir, are not a Constitutionalist. You’re a BIRTHER.