Posted on 03/08/2014 7:02:43 AM PST by Steven Tyler
Lmao. Tears in my eyes.
Natural cull, I love it.
I told my son about Juanita Broderick today.
The youngsters know nothing about democrats. Nothing!
I’m just trying to spread some good cheer. Get some laighs.
We’re all up tight, waiting for the news to break about our naturaly bisexual president. I could be wrong, maybe he’s into goats.
-PJ
The eighty are calling, they want their foreign policy back
....
And an American president who loves America.
Obama: After my election I can be more fleible.
Vladimir: Ok, why don’t you show me how flexible, bend over and touch your ankles fairy boy
Thank you for your post. I share your viewpoint exactly. NbC == born free of any conflicting allegiance (which, except for some very unusual cases, normally means born of blood and of dirt). But the dems did not care and broke the Constitution and the rule of law with aka obama. This has set a precedent of sorts (one which I would rather see exposed to bright cleansing light, killed dead and evaporated by arresting, trying, convicting and sentencing aka obama rather than by being further perpetuated by our side - for without the rule of law, we cede the moral high ground and descend to join the enemy in lawless chaos).
I love Cruz’s take-no-prisoners conservatism, but make no mistake, if he runs, the dems will try to knock him out on ineligibility grounds, but only after it is strategically too late to replace him.
If he becomes our candidate, I will, of course, support him, but if he indeed decides to run, I hope he has the good sense very early on to demand a SCOTUS ruling on the question of his own eligibility.
Some did, some didn’t. For example, Chester A. Arthur’s father, William became a naturalized U.S. Citizen when Chester was 14 years old.
If Ted Cruz runs for president and wins, he will have been born in Canada to a father who naturalized when Ted was 35.
Chester A. Arthur’s father naturalized when Chester was 14 years old.
The language and explanation bothers me because the two sons of Ousted Egyptian President( ?) were born in the USA and I fear there are many Muslims in and out of closets that would support a Muslim POTUSA actually to get such elected. I tend to think we did that anyway with Obama.
A Muslim can be a natural born citizen. President George W, Bush appointed Muslim (Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad) to be United States Ambassador to the United Nations, thus he was a member of the cabinet.
As long as a person is born with American citizenship and none other, his citizenship is natural, Naturally
Yes, a Muslim can be president. Americans can choose to elect a Muhammad and descend the country into the Pitts of hell, forcing women to wear burlap bags, and stoning them, should they choose to do so.
The only Constitutional office where "Born of the soil" and "Born of the blood" is a requirement.....is that of the presidency. You don't have to be born in this country or born of citizen parents to be included in the administration of any president (i.e. Henry Kissenger!)
The same applies to the Senate, the House and the Supreme Court. The only requirement is "Citizen" (born of the soil to non citizen parents)......or "Naturalized Citizenship" (by immigration law).....or, indeed...."Natural Born" (of the soil and the blood). Any of the three types of citizenship..... will suffice for non presidential office seekers.
a muslim president would probably not be so obvious. He would place members of a terrorist group in the WH, pentagon, tate department etc.
His secretary of state ould have a terrorist group connection to her highest ranking assistant.
He would support muslims against our traditional and loyal allies.
He would not stop a muslim country from obtaining a nuclear weapon even when it has threatened one of our allies.
He would make public statements supporting islam and conduct holiday services in the WH.
and so on and so on
“Muslim” is a religion, not an ethnicity or a nationality. I was discussing a religious test for president.
“Jus Sanguinis” is not a requirement to be president. It is one method of acquiring citizenship.
According to Justice Antonin Scalia:
Justice Scalia: …” I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.”
Respondent’s Attorney:
[Ms.]. Davis: “Yes, by the same token…”
Justice Scalia: “That is jus soli, isn’t it?”
[Ms.] Davis: “By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.”
Justice Scalia: “Well, maybe.”
I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?”—From oral arguement, Tuan Ahn Nguyen v. INS (99-2071)
And from Founding Father, president and primary author of the Constitution James Madison: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States. It will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”—1789-House of Representatives
Remember, a “natural hand” has no wild cards, naturally.
A wild card, by its nature, is not natural. Naturally.
Two citizenships at birth produces conflict of loyalty, naturally.
Common sense. Its just that simple. Naturally.
We don’t need long dissertations of law. We just need to use some good old common sense. Putting a man in the white house, born with foreign citizenship was about as stupid as sticking your hand in a meat grinder. Naturally, that would be a damn stupid thing to do. Right?
Dual citizen in the oval office, it just ain’t natural.
It’s like having two husband’s at a wedding.
Which one gets to kiss the bride? You have to make that decision. It just ain’t natural. Thats the wild card.
Which husband goes on the honeymoon? And which one gets the ring? Can the odd one get a girlfriend? Which one pays alimony?
Having a dual citizen president is kinda like taking your wife and your girlfriend out to dinner, on the same night, same restaurant.
You just know the wife is going to feel betrayed. You’ll say say, hey, can’t I invite the exotic female coworker,whats the big deal?
Of course the wife, being the Fuddy daddy spoil sport, says no, it ain’t natural. You insist. And then you get the cops tick shove in you ear.
It just wasn’t natural to bring two women out on a date, even in 1776. Washington knew it would cause problems. Martha would have kicked his ass.
The quote you have from James Madison, would you be so kind to tell us what president or presidential candidate he was referring to?
As we now know, the first draft of constitution required born citizen. It was then changed to Natural born citizen.
As the author of the constitution he would know this, and used both terms when appropriate. Naturally.
Which term is he using in this quote you have posted?
James Madison was talking about the concept of allegiance to the United States in general. He was not referring to any presidential candidate or president.
Would you be so kind as to post a quote from a Founding Father which states that two American citizen parents are required under the Constitution in order to meet the Article Two, Section 1 natural born citizen provision.
And we know from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Minor v. Happersett that: “The Constitution does not say in words who shall be ‘natural born citizens.’ Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.” {1874}
And we know from the government’s brief for the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that the government asked the High Court to decide:
“Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”
The government’s attorney went on to say that: “To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation—a right of all aliens—yet he was not born subject to the “political jurisdiction” thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”
The Justices of the Supreme Court disagreed, six to two.
You are correct.
I can see that modern progressives made mince meat of the art of the term in the public school system.
They bastardized the term for 75 years in order to explain the constitution to little children.
So here we are, with a Kenyan born Putz at the helm of USA, Driving it into the rpcks.
John Jay hit the nail on the head.
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.