Fifth THAAD Missile Test Deemed a Success , but terrorist-friendly candidates want passionately to kill this stunningly successful missile defense program, as hostile China tells them is their duty... uncivilized China, where the same regime which has the blood of over 60 million on its hands, is still in power today, shooting into crowds of MONKS... and these backward inheritors of despotism, tell American progressives, such as Obama the quota place-holder, which military hardware systems are to be considered threats to THEIR idea of 'peace' and 'brotherhood'... yes, China wants you to value openness to their nukes, and they imagine you might trust them, since nihilistic left-wing politicians say you can
More>
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi John,
Not the best way to respond to you, but what the heck, I think it'll work.
First, thanks for reading, I appreciate it.
Second, about the comments:
I turned the comments off on that one because I was getting bombarded with inane comments and the usual meaningless insults that tend to show up on blogs and contribute nothing to good dialogue.
It's nice to get a real question. Thank You.
Third, to answer your question the best I can:
As near as I could determine, at that point, their concern was the majority of the population in 1789 that was eligible for the Presidency still had close ties to their European past, and that those ties to the Old World with the Revolution belong in the very close past was a concern. The origin of the natural born clause was attributed to Jay's letter to Washington, but I could find no explicit reference as to why. So I'll readily admit that I'm not sure and easily could be wrong.
In 1789 an eligible citizen for President (sans the natural born clause) would have been born in 1753-4, meaning that they would have been colonial subjects by birth, and most likely their parents would have been born in Europe. That close parental influence did play a large role in loyalties back then, especially with the Tories, so your theory about dispossessed landowners may be accurate. As for those who fled during the Revolution, I have found nothing to indicate that one way or another.
But I will also admit I am puzzled by something, so perhaps you can clarify for me:
In your comment post to me, you said this:
"In any case, if it is known that they wanted to exclude those who had fled during the revolution, without becoming citizens, or whose parents had done that, then McCain is quite certainly disqualifiable."
What's puzzling is that I'm not seeing the connection you appear to be making here between people who fled during the Revolution and McCain being born outside the United States 150 years later. Can you explain further?
Email me at tannim123@yahoo.com.
Thanks.
John Jay letter to George Washington, 25 July 1787
"New-York, 25th July, 1787.
Dear Sir,
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.
I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay. "
This is the relevant document, no doubt.
Post a Comment