Posted on 04/02/2010 2:13:33 PM PDT by rxsid
Interesting. Agnew was born on Nov. 9, 1918 (two days before the armistice) so he should be on the 1920 and 1930 censuses, both of which are now available to the public. Which one did you consult?
>> Not quite. The NBC requirement also applies
>> to the Vice President
True. And that's a scary thought as well,
but I'd take stupid over EVIL.
With the exception of perhaps the SECDEF,
there's a little bit of BOTH on this list after Obama:
Naah heehee...I like to post to the zots sometimes. I know they lurk out there. ;-) Besides, he is on my ping list I keep on my forum page. *Snicker*
Found this on the net.
The problem with insisting now on the original rule that both parents must be citizens at the person's birth is that there have been exceptions which passed unchallenged at the time (Chester Arthur for VP and for President, Agnew for VP). The public seems to think that anyone born in the US is a "natural born citizen" so it's going to be hard for a few constitutional experts to set them straight.
According to a poster, MGB, here: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/02/22/eligibility-hi-petition-launched-in-spite-of-introduced-bills/ they state that the 1910 and 1930 Census, as well as Agnew's father's WWI registration card state the he was a Naturalized citizen. His WWI reg card is dated Sept. 12, 1918 and Agnew was born Nov. 9, 1918. Coupled with a 1910 census listing that status, it appears that his father was Naturalized prior to the birth of Agnew. Therefore, Agnew would be NBC.
Of note, apparently the 1920 census lists his father's status as alien. However, that same census also lists the wrong year of his immigration.
BTTT & bookmark
That about ends the speculation of Spiro Agnew’s NBC status. I would think that all the presidents and all the VPs have been sifted through and scrutinized about their origins by both the right and the left since the Obama.
He’s been an Obongo loving troll forever.
correction... a day and a half
New troll alert
Dang - missed it.
Remember, that list only applies when all above a particular postition are "wiped out" at the same time. If the President goes, then the VP becomes President AND picks a new VP, with the advice and consent of the Senate. If both Pres and VP go at the same time, then Speakers becomes President and picks a new VP. and similarly down the list. Of course if anyone on the list is not eligible, then they do not become President if they otherwise would have.
Bottom line, barring a nuke attack on DC, I don't think we need worry about President Stretch or President Sheets, and cetainly not President Hildebeast.
Damn, I missed it, who was it?
What was the post?
Nice try, but apparently Agnew was NBC and the 1920 Census data was in error. While Arthur's status was not generally known. It was known or at least thought (correctly) that the was born in Vermont, It was also known that his mother was born in the US, and that his father had been here, or in Canada, for a good long time before his birht, and was a citizen at the time of his selection to VP. What was not known was that his father was not naturalized until well after Chester's birth(about 14 years afterwards) The latter fact was only recently unearthed.
Since "the public" did not know his status, how can you say they approved?
Even though, in the only verified case of someone with that status becoming (de facto) President, that status was not known to the public when he was elected (VP) and/or became (de facto) President.
Really, really desperate.
As if "public opinion in the late 1880s or the late 1960s/early 1970s has anything directly do with the original meaning of any term in the Constitution in the first place. It means what it meant when written and ratified. Nothing more, nothing less. That's the way written contracts and Constitutions are.
Signed up 4/3/2010. Made one post today, went off on a Freeper. The trolls sure are worried about that BC aren’t they?
It is amazing just how hard they are trying to show some precedent.
And yeah, “public opinion” during any period is not enough to change the Constitution in anyway, anyway.
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.
