I don’t understand how much proof is needed. The fact he was born in Canada to a foreign father, coupled with the news that he renounced his Canadian citizenship should have ended any doubt that he was ineligible.
I don’t care what “naturalization” statutes have been enacted since...the framers didn’t want foreigners in the office of the President. They wanted sons of US fathers, and born in the US.
The Constitution has not been amended in such a fashion so as to negate that intent.
But we love Canada & Canadian bacon, hockey, maple syrup, mounties, etc.
And Calgary’s just like Dallas, just colder.
And Alberta’s just like Nebraska, just colder.
Eh?
Sorry, your assertion is incorrect. The founders didn’t care if they were born in the US and they didn;t care about the father exclusively. Read what the founding fathers actually passed and signed into law:
“the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.
Tax man keeps mentioning the Naturalization Act of 1790 but fails to point out that it was REPEALED and replaced by the Act of 1795 which never ever mentioned NBC again even to this day. There are subsequent supreme court rulings and State Department info guides that positively state that children born to U.S. citizens overseas MUST be naturalized. See the Supreme Court ruling in Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971).