Would anyone care to comment on the following?

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution contains the clause:

Why would the founders insert this clause, requiring the President to be a natural born citizen?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen -

"It is thought the origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787 from John Jay (who had been born in New York City) to George Washington (who had been born in Virginia), presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would 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 Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention."

What we have is a concern about the amber allegiance of the President.

The tribal allegiance, the ties of blood. A concern for the ... loyalty ... in the end.

Now I add the following. http://www.nysun.com/opinion/kenya-connection/69273/

Barack Obama appears to have kinship ties with the Luo Tribe of Kenya. He has shown very close attention to the political fortunes of the Luo tribe, and in particular, Raila Odinga. Raila Odinga claims that Obama is his first cousin. Obama's support for Odinga has been quite "familial."

The issue of citizenship, from a legal standpoint, is quite complicated. That is, "legal" citizenship.

Some nations permit citizenship of a new born child as a matter of fact, if the father is a citizenship. Others require that the citizenship process be determined after application. Others permit citizenship if either parent is a citizen. Others, like the U.S. permit citizenship either through a parent, or ... by being born with the territorial jurisdiction of the nation.

I am not sure what Kenyan law provided on this issue when Barack Obama was born. But as one travels down the vertical altitude line in a given society, greater power is often accorded males born of males. I would not be surprised if an argument could be made that Barack Obama is legally a dual citizen of both the U.S. and Kenya.

There are technical arguments that John McCain is not a citizen. These are weak though, mainly because the law does not favor a person being born without citizenship of some nation and John McCain was born abroad while his father was subject to a commission by the President of the United States to serve in the Navy. For McCain to not be a U.S. citizen, would make him stateless (unless an argument could be made that the Panama Canal zone conferred upon him citizenship.)

The real issue is loyalty.

John McCain has no foreign tribe that he feels the slightest loyalty to.

Is anyone concerned that Barack Obama does? Or that he has especially close ties to someone who claims to be his first cousin and who has an affinity for communist legacies and probably genocide?

How far does this matter?

If anyone thinks Integral Political Theory matters, I am suggesting dialogue on a very real question with real implications.

Luo Tribe politics have been enforced through genocidal acts in the very recent past. The Democratic nominee appears not only to be a member of that tribe (through the accident of birth), but ... currently feels himself affiliated with that tribe!

Was John Jay's concern a valid one?