![I'm sure it won't matter. [625x758 - 107KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/Zgvee6.jpg){kind=link}
Because it's in the definitions themselves. Natural-born and Naturalized both mean, according to legal standards when the Constitution was written, that the individual's father is also a citizen. The reason for this is because the father would then be subject to being called into service for another nation and then the president would have divided loyalties.
That is made up garbage. Sauce that belief. Show me one founding father that suggested the like in. the federalist or anti-fed papers. Anchor babies are not naturalized.
So, if dad fights in a foreign war, that's a conflict, but not grand dad? How about brother? If your brother enlists in a foreign military are you ineligible due to possible conflicts and divided loyalties?
And again, if you would bother yourself to actually read Article 1 Section 3, you wouldn't be suggesting such nonsense.
It comes from the standard legal language of the day. Do your research and you'll find that there was a standard international legal dictionary (published in France and generally accepted) which was used.
I've done my research and what was suggested in that post is utter garbage.
If you have law or legal precedent, let's see it. I'm not your researcher for horseshit.
We don't subscribe to "international law". There is no international legal body with jurisdiction in the US, and fuck everything that has anything to do with France. What utter fucking stupidity.
(post is archived)