LMAO!!! Hey, Nasty!!! Do we expect anymore from our naturalized citizens than we do from our Natural Born Citizens, what is that oath they take?Continuing:
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does NOT say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. There isnt a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.
Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.
Under libertarian principles (remember them?), neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does not SAY any such thing.
And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?
Why? Why, when there isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Dale's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it?
The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.
There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.
And yet slimy Dale thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.
Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents?(If Washington did think so, he could have said so--but he never did. So why assume that he did?) Why does slimy Dale want you to think that George Washington, who was not afraid of much, or Ben Franklin or Alexander Hamilton, or the others, was afraid of US-born children of foreigners-----such as your ancestors?
IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners, they would have said so, but they NEVER said so, so why assume that they were afraid? Why does slimy Dale want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Why slimy Dale?
As we all know, children born in this country of alien fathers receive the citizenship of their father's country of origin, this would make them subject to a foreign power.