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

To: Scanian
You would have a better argument against John McCain's presidential eligibility using those laws.

Do you really want to let the British and their laws to tell us who we can have eligible for president?

Why don't we just have a definition of “natural born U.S. citizen” written into the constitution and the requirement that all candidates running for president will have to show proof of eligibility?

16 posted on 04/27/2011 2:01:17 PM PDT by outpostinmass2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


OH HECK NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I dislike him now more then ever,

Why did he withhold them for so long?

I don’t even know the word to use for this kind of behavior.


17 posted on 04/27/2011 2:06:01 PM PDT by Sophia777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: outpostinmass2

So what is the problem with MeCain? His mother and father were both American citizens. His father was on active duty when McCain was born in the Panama canal Zone which was US Terriritory by treaty with Panama. The canal zone even had a canal zone govenor, courts and law enforcement at that time. Is John McCain the only citiizen bor aborad whose fathers or mothers were in the military, not by a long shot.


19 posted on 04/27/2011 2:21:55 PM PDT by Americanexpat (Everytime I see that guy's face ot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: outpostinmass2; All

My husband and I decided to use a Canadian Hospital right across the border from us for the birth of our last child. The hospital was the only one within a reasonable driving distance that would guarantee that my husband could see one of his children enter this world.

It is our understanding that our daughter is ineligible to run for the Presidency, since she was born on foreign soil, even though we are both American citizens.

Am I wrong? If not, something is off with Obama being eligible with one foreign parent.


22 posted on 04/27/2011 2:28:14 PM PDT by jacquej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: outpostinmass2
Do you believe in the concept of a commonly accepted definition even though it may not be specifically defined? Like the definition of marriage being commonly accepted to be between one man and one woman for hundreds of years even though there is no legal definition nationally?

Why is this any different? Are we not to look to the founders original intent of what the term meant and why it was put in the document in the first place?

25 posted on 04/27/2011 2:50:18 PM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: outpostinmass2

It wasn’t necessary in 1787 to take up space in a concise document like the Constitution when the standard, international definition of NBC was known to every statesman in America.

De Vattel, BTW, was Swiss, NOT British. He was respected throughout the 17th Century world for “writing the book” on international law.

Our whole legal system is based on the common law. Blackstone was the big expert on the subject in days gone by.

The Founders knew what they wanted and maybe they could have been more specific in some of their wording. But they tried to be concise and therefore made a few assumptions. The Second Amendment is another example of the text not providing the entire original intent.

We have to look at the text, the discussions of the Founders leading up to the text, and the extra-constitutional sources they looked to and respected. They did not operate in a vacuum.

Also: look up the famous letter of John Jay to George Washington on the subject of NBC if you have the time.


37 posted on 04/27/2011 4:38:48 PM PDT by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | 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