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

To: DiogenesLamp; All

Yeah, I’ve consistently maintained from almost the very beginning of the Obama Citizenship debate that the “intent” of Our Founding Fathers is more important than the legal interpretations of the phrase, “Natural Born.”

Since Our Founding Fathers put the Natural Born Clause in the Constitution to help insure that the President has complete, undivided allegiances to the Citizens of the United States, the true litmus test for who is and who isn’t a Natural Born citizen should always be weighted heavily towards one’s loyalty.

For me, Obama gave up any claim he had to Natural Born citizenship when, having had dual citizenship, he tacitly demonstrated his fealty to his father’s homeland by jetting over to Kenya and inserting himself into Odinga’s 2006 presidential race!

I found that odd since the purpose of Obama’s trip was supposedly to raise awareness for AIDS, nothing else politically, that I am aware of. Yet, there he was, railing against the then current government and helping his buddy Odinga move into power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/26/world/africa/26obama.html?_r=0

That certainly didn’t fit in with the underlying intent of undivided loyalties when the Founders drafted that Natural Born Clause!

Ergo, NOT Natural Born.

As for Cruz, if he shows himself solely loyal to the Citizens of the United States, then I have no problems extending to him my Natural Born blessings, even though I know, legally, his Born Abroad status is problematic, at best.

Like I keep harping on in this comment, it’s the Framers’ intent of the law that counts the most, not the letter of the law.

I think if more Freepers were to embrace that notion, there’d be a heck of a lot less virtual blood spilled between we few, we happy few, we band of brothers.

Cheers!


666 posted on 03/09/2013 9:02:57 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies ]


To: DoctorBulldog
That certainly didn’t fit in with the underlying intent of undivided loyalties when the Founders drafted that Natural Born Clause!

See 670.

Sorry to break the news to you, but you've been had. The birther doctrine of "undivided loyalties" is a myth.

They simply didn't care whether a person's parents came from another country.

(William Rawle, friend and colleague of both Franklin and Washington: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.")

They didn't care whether a person spent his entire life in a foreign country, except for a minimum of 14 years.

(Article II, Section 5, United States Constitution).

Heck, they didn't care whether a President was a dual citizen.

(Thomas Jefferson, author of Declaration of Independence and 3rd US President, 1801-1809).

They just wanted to keep the British and other European royalty out.

Crash. Bang. That was the entire birther meme of "undivided loyalties," collapsing in a heap on the floor.

672 posted on 03/09/2013 10:05:07 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies ]

To: DoctorBulldog
I agree. The central purpose of the requirement is to insure sole loyalty to the United States to the exclusion of favoring another nation.

The reasonableness of this requirement is simply lost on our opponents.

1,064 posted on 03/11/2013 10:23:16 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | 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