I thought the way you worded that begged for a meme:
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 ...
Most folks do not believe that Obama Sr was Obama’s father.
BTTT
They did actually, there is a specific exemption in the Constitution for people in the founding fathers’ situation.
It’s not defined in the Constitution.
Oversimplification and inaccurate. Parents need to be citizens by birth or naturalization at the time of the child’s birth for the child to be a natural born citizen.
____________________________________
Only two words are needed to disprove this: Barack Obama.
With Arnold the situation is not unclear because he wasn’t born here, so he had to be naturalized. Everyone agrees that a naturalized citizen can’t be a natural born citizen. That’s not controversial.
It’s not up to FR to come to a consensus. An honest person reading the links to the founders letters essays, etc and the early court cases has no room for confusion.
The Cornell law group knew that which is why they tried to push through legislation to establish a new definition and allow Obama to run without controversy. Cornell failed and when Obama did run the indolence and cupidity of the GOP-e and the aggressive nature of the left allowed the issue to be pushed aside and not reported on.
Of course!
And if Don Jr., Eric, or Ivanka Trump ever run for president, they'll have allegiance to Czechoslovakia, a country that doesn't even exist anymore.
“because their parents are subject to the authority of their home country”
But that argument is fallacious, since we charge such illegal immigrants with crimes all the time. We couldn’t do that if they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States the second they crossed the border.
People who have children here but are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are foreigners on diplomatic missions, not illegal immigrants.
Of course legally speaking a consensus on Free Republic is meaningless.
But considering the number of responses we get whenever the issue of Natural Born citizenship is discussed on Free Republic, there were many many widely Divergent opinions.
To be fair, NOBODY is qualified to be president if they want to uphold the Constitution, not abuse the Constitution. Virtually every candidate but one can actually make the claim, and has proven it as well.
(Face it. You are a racist.)
Do you think the founders were racists?
With Arnold the situation is not unclear because he wasn’t born here, so he had to be naturalized. Everyone agrees that a naturalized citizen can’t be a natural born citizen. That’s not controversial.
_____________________________________________
Is Arnold a US citizen? Then yeah. He could be president.
The point is opinions are worth nothing if not backed by facts and reasoning.
I thought the way you worded that begged for a meme:
If you are born here, regardless of where your parents were born you are a natural born citizen of the USA and therefore eligible to be POTUS.
Like I said, earlier, how many of the first few Presidents were not only born here but both their parents were born here. I don’t really know but I doubt very many.
I remember this coming up with John McCain, he wasn’t born in the USA, he was born in Panama, but both his parents were born here, therefore he could be POTUS.
Well, naturalized citizens don’t have allegiance to another country but that doesn’t make them natural born citizens. So that’s not a very strong argument.
Do you think the founders were racists?
Yes. that 3/5 business (and many other pro-slavery opinions) supports that charge.
Not even citizens of Puerto Rico, a US territory can be president. They’re not Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizens.
I stand with the founders original intent. Do you?
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.