And they are completely wasted on Jeff, because he is not. (Rational.)
Unlike that clown DiogenesLamp.
Being a clown is not so bad. It's MUCH Better than being a lap-dog, such as yourself.
Here again you make a valid point, even if it's ultimately incorrect.
His only mistake is being civil to you.
I'll put it another way: From the very beginning of our Republic, most people, including most of the public, most of our legislators, most lawyers, and most judges, including most of our Founding Fathers and their generation, believed that if you were a citizen at birth, then you were a "natural born citizen" and eligible to be President.
Which of course, fails to note the snake with the tail in it's mouth; That at the time, if you were a "citizen at birth" you were in fact, a "natural born citizen". The salient aspect being, of course, that you are born to someone from whom you could inherit citizenship.
I think the historical evidence for that is very clear.
It is absolutely clear, yet Jeff refuses to note or accept a jot of it. 100+ million Slaves, Indians, and Children of British Loyalists since the founding were denied citizenship though they met the birth on soil standard, and yet Jeff simply refuses to recognize the historical evidence. There had to be SPECIAL LAWS passed to GRANT them citizenship, Yet this idiot-bucket argues that they were "natural" citizens.
This belief appeared, among a FEW people, for the first time in US history, around 4 years ago.
Another propaganda meme from the Smogblow democrats.
So our Congresses, throughout history, didn't include the words "natural born" when they passed laws saying such people were citizens because (if they considered whether such people would be eligible to be President at all, which most of the time they didn't) they didn't notice any need to.
Alternatively, since they did not HAVE the power to make something "natural" which was not, they simply RECOGNIZED that their only power was that of "naturalization." You know, as explicitly spelled out in the powers of congress?
In other words, if you are a CITIZEN, AND your CITIZENSHIP was acquired at the moment of your BIRTH, then you are a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Yes, if you are a simple minded twit that is unable to think for yourself, such a simplistic concept is easy to remember. It isn't the truth, but such as you has no use for the truth.
Congress could pass a law right now naturalizing "at birth" everyone born in the world with blue eyes, and STUPID SH*THEAD JEFF will come along and claim "THEY ARE NATURAL BORN!"
The notion that Congress can just pass a law and MAKE someone "natural born" is a level of stupidity such that only a member of your special class of IDIOT can countenance it.
A special class of idiot that also objects to "anchor babies."
Not one single Founder, Framer, legal expert, court case or judge, or anyone who ever knew any of the major Founders or Framers EVER said that a person who was born a citizen on US soil had to have citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen.
Your claim is simply delusional.
It is absolutely clear, yet Jeff refuses to note or accept a jot of it. 100+ million Slaves, Indians, and Children of British Loyalists since the founding were denied citizenship though they met the birth on soil standard, and yet Jeff simply refuses to recognize the historical evidence. There had to be SPECIAL LAWS passed to GRANT them citizenship, Yet this idiot-bucket argues that they were "natural" citizens.
No, I don't. I never said any such thing.
Children of British Loyalists, who remained in the United States and took up their duties as US citizens, were native citizens of the Colony in which they were born. And when that Colony became a state, they continued to be native citizens of the same political community. It mattered not that that community was now called a "State" instead of a "Colony." Their political parents - The Crown of England and the political community in which they were born and lived - got a divorce. They ceased to be subjects of England, but continued as citizens of the community to which JAMES MADISON said they owed their PRIMARY allegiance.
Slaves were not considered citizens, because they were legally counted as "property" and not as "persons." There were also legal measures passed in some places that proscribed persons of African descent from citizenship on the basis of their race.
But in every Colony and State, the child born within that Colony or State, of white, European parents, was a citizen, whether his parents were citizens or not.
As for the Indians, they were members of separate nations that we made treaties with, just as we made treaties with other foreign governments. If they left their tribes and entered the society of the United States, and had children born as members of our political community rather than under the tribal government, then those children were natural born citizens as well.
And this is the situation as it was expressed by our legal experts, Congressmen, judges and courts.
It's not controversial, and it's not that hard to understand.