Posted on 05/22/2011 5:11:47 PM PDT by EricaD
Amen...
It seems logical that if a baby is born here to two parents who are here legally en route to becoming American citizens, or even to one parent who has followed our laws, that child is eligible upon turning 35. Why shouldn’t he/she be?
Immigrant hater? That’s a typical knee-jerk reaction. I’m married to an immigrant, and as a result my children are only native born. They cannot run for President.
This is an ignorant reply. Read the links provided thoroughly, and yo will learn something useful.
Good post. 100% agree. Bobby Jindal is not a ‘natural born citizen’ and is thus not eligible to be President. If the Republican party does not get this fact straight in their head then they are going to have much greater problems then they realize.
It seems as if the political elites want desperately to just ignore the issue of parentage involving Presidential eligibility and while that may work great for the socilaist democrat party, the republican party will be acting as fools if they think those in their base who care about the Constitution will just give this issue up and follow along.
Read the links provided and you will learn otherwise.
Because the argument is that to be President, being born on US soil is enough. In her case, she would and could be a dual citizen while still being born on US soil.
I wondered if the poster agreed with their stance enough to not be upset with the fact you could have a Canadian for a President.
In other words, was the poster able to keep logically true to what they posted?
And, FYI, a residential alien IS a legal alien.
Immigrant haters? Is that directed at any FReeper in particular or are you just tilting at windmills?
I also note that this poster has not replied.
If they really mean what they posted, they would have no trouble with a dual citizen being President.
Are you a citizen of the US?
This thread is for entertainment purposes only. While I don’t find any fault with the assertion or the argument, the fact is that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the specific language as it applies to eligibility to the Office of President. So, until the Court rules, these sorts of discussion are just for fun.
A more important question is to ponder how the Court would rule. I think that the vote would be 5-4, but which direction I don’t know. Since most modern jurist think very little of the Natural Born Citizen clause to begin with, I think that there are at least four votes on the present court to support anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of parents citizenship. That means only one other justice would need to agree with them and all of these arguments would go right out the window.
By your logic we should just accept activist Court decisions as well. Those who oppose abortion are doing it just for fun. BS.
This thread is not just for entertainment purposes. If the republican party is now going to decide to run a candidate fully knowing that they are violating the Constitution then they will lose a percentage of their base completely.
Have you ever read any Supreme Court decisions? Let's start with a couple of pertinent comments, shall we?
In 'Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor' in 1830, the court finds:
Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
Later, in 'United States v. Wong Kim Ark" in 1898, we come across this comment:
The English statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700). c. 6, entitled
"An act to enable His Majesty's natural-born subjects to inherit the estate of their ancestors, either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens,"
enacted that "all and every person or persons, being the King's natural-born subject or subjects, within any of the King's realms or dominions," might and should thereafter lawfully inherit and make their titles by descent to any lands...
We further find in the Ark decision:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,"
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
---------------------------------
Did you see that particular phrase in the last paragraph above? Let me repeat it for you:
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.
---------------------------------
There is not a magic third type. You see, Vattel was Swiss and Wolff, who he translated and got most of his ideas from, was German.
But the U.S. Constitution and Code of Law were based on English Common Law. And there is no magic third type of citizenship in English Common Law.
Besides the fact that none of the cases you mention were directly about the NBC issue I have to wonder do you also then now spport abortion as a right?
I guess in your mind being that you can bring up cases that have nothing to do with the issue directly we should all just accept them as being the answer.
I have seen many references from the times of the Founders and onward claiming a ‘natural born citizen’ to be someone with two American citizen parents.
The republican party had better get this fact straight on where they stand.
I have no doubt from studying this issue that a NBC was someone with two American citizen parents.
You are confusing personal beliefs with the Rule of Law in this country. Supreme Court rulings become the law of the land even if you don’t agree with them and even if they go against the original intent of the founders. That has been going on for a very long time.
Also I have seen the crap positition you take for two years as well and there is nothing new. The Wong case and the activist judges is not at all a new argument in this debate. It is a faulty argument though.
What matters is what the Framers believed and everything I have seen in this debate leads me to fully believe that a NBC was based upon Vattel’s definition.
I am not confusing any such thing. The cases listed were not to decide the Presidential eligibility clause and are then not the Rule of Law in regards to Presidential eligibility.
Besides even if activist judges disregard the Constitution I still have no cause to accept. Do you consider abortion to be a right?
A NBC is someone with two American citizen parents.
So say you and many others, but since the Constitution does not define the term only the Supreme Court can interpret what the clause means and they have never done so. When they do, you are likely to be disappointed.
I am disappointed now that we have such a corrupt and cowardly Court and such a corrupt Congress as well.
I am disappointed in cowards such as the conservative elites on the radio who ignore this issue completely.
I doubt that I could be any more disappointed.
But we will see. This issue is not going away. It may be you who ends up being disppointed and not me.
We will both be disappointed, but I recognize that the political class does not want to touch this issue and therefore they will ignore. The courts will do likewise. It will not be the first time that the political class has ignored the Constitution when it doesn't suit them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.