Posted on 08/30/2023 10:02:25 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Kamala Harris, Nikki Haley, and Vivek Ramaswamy are not eligible to serve as president of the United States. Nor are Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Why? They are not “natural born citizens,” which is one of the presidential requirements outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Making that claim, of course, immediately prompts a response of, “Of course they are natural born citizens! What are you, a racist?” But those who are eager to ridicule and condemn such a statement of ineligibility are merely demonstrating their ignorance of the term natural born citizen. What is important, however, is not what television pundits (or “pundints,” as they often incorrectly refer to themselves) believe the term means, but what the Founding Fathers understood the term to mean when they decreed the following:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Probably close to 100 percent of Americans alive today believe the term natural born citizen simply means born in the United States of America. But that is not what the term meant to the authors of the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
It does when people born in the USA are not considered eligible to run for POTUS.
Haley, Ramaswamy and Harris were all born in the USA so they pass the test for eligibility to be POTUS, arguing this point is stupid when other obvious issues make them candidates that do not support the issues people care about which is what we should be talking about.
Debating their eligibility to be POTUS is akin to arguing the moon landing was faked which recently happened here on FR.
What is pitiful? The fact that Vivek was born in Cincinnati?
Do you think the founders were racists?
Yes. that 3/5 business (and many other pro-slavery opinions) supports that charge.
So you think the support of the “3/5 business” was racist? It was just the opposite. Congressional representation is determined by population and the south wanted the slaves counted fully in the population to add to their representation in Washington.
Counting them as 3/5 of a person lessened the slaves states’ representation. That is hardly racist.
ALL of that went out the window when they installed the kenyan/indonesian as "pResident".
I love getting into these "natural born citizen" threads.
This is true, but there are still those of us who do not believe men can become "women" simply because a court says so.
Counting them as 3/5 of a person lessened the slaves states’ representation. That is hardly racist.
________________________________________________
Wouldn’t that have actually INCREASED representation in the south? Instead of only whites being represented, they could add 3/5 ownership of their slaves to better their congressional position.
And of course blacks, (slaves or not) got nothing from this arrangement.
This has been debated and your position has been found to be incorrect.
The fact that this comes up when black or brown people are running makes it even more suspect. No one was talking about this when Dukakis ran.
Anyway, there are plenty of reasons why none of these people will be President. Except Harris. I think there is a good chance she becomes President.
The definition is not in the US Constitution. So far as I know, the constitution only defines the word "Treason", and nothing else.
The definition for "natural born citizen" is in Vattel's Law of Nations.
Maybe we will hit 200 replies?
A recent thread on this subject hit over 400 replies.
This is incorrect. In 1787, *ONLY* the father mattered. The mother's citizenship was irrelevant.
So long as the father was or became a US citizen, the child was a natural citizen of the USA.
"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."
is a clarification of Article 2 Section 1's:
The 14th amendment is a naturalization law. It cannot make natural citizens by law.
I can't find anywhere, where the Founding Fathers voted on the definition.
Vattel seems to be a Prussian, who never visited the United States.
Debating their eligibility to be POTUS is akin to arguing the moon landing was faked which recently happened here on FR.
And yet, this subject comes up frequently on Free Republic. And there can easily be hundreds of replies, as people argue back and forth, present their evidence on either side.
There is no real consensus on Free Republic, about this issue. Maybe that’s why there is so much arguing.
Sure, but what you choose to believe, and what the law is, are two different matters.
Some Freepers have said, they will not vote for a candidate whom they perceive not to be a natural born citizen. So that right there would settle things, if enough people won’t vote for someone who in their opinion, is not natural born.
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.