Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers

“Natural Born” was no longer common?

It was never “common” to begin with. Natural Born has nothing to do with where you are born. None. It never was and never will be. It has nothing to do with Amendment XIV. It is a requirement for the Commander in Chief position only. The residency requirement handles the citizenship aspect.

That is why it was placed in Article II. Nothing more, nothing less. We can argue all day long about terms, phrases, and concepts. The fact still remains. Mr. Jay asked Mr. Washington for a strong check for the Commander in Chief position, and a guarantee for allegiance to the United States to prevent a military coup in the United States. His request was granted for obvious reasons.


151 posted on 02/05/2012 1:15:08 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies ]


To: devattel

“It was never “common” to begin with. Natural Born has nothing to do with where you are born.”

Try to stop being a fool long enough to think thru a few sentences. The phrase “natural born subject” was commonly used in the 1600s & 1700s, and every Founder was familiar with it. It was legalese for ‘a subject due to birth in the realm’.

With time, the natural born part was dropped, and today the British talk about subjects. Natural born citizen was the American equivalent for a person whose citizenship came from birth within the US (or, following British common law, to those born of two citizen parents abroad). With time, the words natural & born were dropped, and citizen remained.


155 posted on 02/05/2012 3:42:47 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson