Posted on 07/23/2012 10:27:38 AM PDT by TexasVoter
Article 2 Super PAC has placed an explosive ad on the front section, back page of today's Washington Times, quoting Cold Case Posse Lead Investigator Mike Zullo, "It's time for this charade to stop!"
“Believe me, I despise the man, but it is my understanding, that if his mother was an American citizen and he was born anywhere in the world, he is a ‘natural born’ American - no need to ‘naturalize’.”
How did you reach this understanding? Citizenship has been tied to the father for,,forever. Isn’t that why they call it HIStory instead of HERstory?
Why isn’t anyone born in the US a natural born citizen? That would mean any child of any illegal alien, communist dictator, Mexican NarcoTerrorist, etc., born in the USA - just like Anwar al-Awlaki, Islamic terrorist extraordinaire, born in Las Cruces, NM, to Yemeni parents.
Your position suggests that, as long as a person is born in the US, regardless of the parents’ citizenship, they can be raised abroad to be an enemy of the US and reintroduced into our country in time to meet the 14-year residency requirement.
Raise your hand if that’s what you think the Founding Fathers intended when they used the phrase, “natural boern Citizen,” in Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution. Anyone...?
NBC = Born in the USA to parents who are both citizens at the time. (Sorry, Bobby Jindal and Macro Rubio.)
As you can see, even by reading this very thread, that there are disagreements as to who is an NBC besides the hapless television network. There is only one agreement among the pursuers of this matter (which I don’t happen to share) that people with arguments like yours are just dirt!
That said, it seems clear to me that if Obumster wasn’t born in the U.S. of an adult mother he ain’t no NBC.
A natural born citizen relies on nature and only nature to demonstrate citizenship. Born in the country of citizen parents. All other combinations need help from a law.
The laws of nature are not subject to the laws of Congress and Congress knows it. Look for them to do nothing.
CaLl for Freepers Reinforcements
Freepers need to show these Obots what the truth is.
They are lying and confusing people that are now inquiring about this.
A "natural" citizen is one whom is born with no other nation's claim upon them.
Your children can be Claimed by the Greeks under the jus soli doctrine of law. Children born in the U.S. to U.S. Citizen parents, cannot be claimed by any other nation, and therefore they have no hint of divided loyalty.
That is the sum total purpose and intent of the "natural citizen" requirement. No divided loyalty.
Natual born citizen is a requirement for President of the US and does not mean statutorily born a citizen at birth (until decided by the US Supreme Court which they are avoiding)
Another aspect of this of which you may not be aware is that prior to 1924, Women could not transfer citizenship at all. It was the "Cable Act" of 1922 that first permitted women the ability to transfer citizenship. Prior to that point in History, ONLY the father could transfer citizenship.
Why does this matter? How can you argue that someone is a "natural citizen" (A term used in the constitution written in 1784) when they are only a citizen through an act of congress passed a over a hundred years later?
As I have pointed out countless times, the meaning of constitutional terms cannot be re-defined by subsequent acts of congress. The meaning of the term "right to bear arms" will not change if congress defines the word "arms" to mean rubber band guns. Likewise, Congress cannot create natural citizens. They can only naturalize people into being citizens.
If a citizen is only a citizen because of a subsequent act of congress, then they are NOT a "natural citizen". They are an artificially created citizen with the exact legal status (for article II purposes) as that of any other "naturalized" citizen.
Yup, which is why I expect him to be the VP nominee.
The powers that be are laughing at us. They aren't even trying to hide anything anymore.
what they said.........
I don’t think that is it. First of all, they are gutless wonders, and secondly, Marco Rubio was born in the U.S. There is some debate here on FR about the citizen status of parents at the time of birth, but I think most people outside of here believe that the birth requirement is that as long as you are born here in the U.S. you are a natural born citizen, and that includes members of Congress.
Members of Congress believe what Pelosi, Reid, Boehner, McConnell, etc., tell them to believe - otherwise their constituents get no government largesse, and when re-elect-time comes around, the DNC and RNC provide them no “campaign donations”.
The old guard will not give up their positions of power, and they will not tolerate any who don’t toe the proscribed line.
If that “line” means the ineligible Rubio is to be VP, Rubio will be the VP - and to hell with the Constitution.
Rubio is toeing the line nicely. He turned on the tea party, he’s weak on “immigration”. And did I read somewhere today that he’s among those ripping Michelle Bachmann for calling out Hums Abedin’s connections to the Muslim Brotherhood? [correct me if that’s wrong]. Such a good little RINO-in-training he is.
No, because Obama has never proven that he was even BORN in this country. That piece of paper that he calls his BC doesn’t prove that at all. Rubio at least has one leg up on him on that score.
“I think most people outside of here believe that the birth requirement is that as long as you are born here in the U.S. you are a natural born citizen, and that includes members of Congress.”
That would include any child of any illegal alien, communist dictator, Mexican NarcoTerrorist, etc., who was born in the USA - just like Anwar al-Awlaki, Islamic terrorist extraordinaire, born in Las Cruces, NM, to Yemeni parents.
So — as long as a person is born in the US, regardless of the parents’ citizenship, they can be raised abroad as an enemy of the US and reintroduced into our country in time to meet the 14-year residency requirement for POTUS?
I’d like to see an explanation from anyone who thinks that is what the Framers of the Constitution intended when they used the phrase, “natural born Citizen.”
You make a great point. The progressive liberals have guided the general population through political correctness that anyone born here can run for president. The election commission should have put their foot down and made a big deal out of letting Roger Colero, a Nicaraguan National, get on presidential ballots in several states.
Yes, that is so. Rules are rules. The Constitution doesn’t say if you are a Natural Born Citizen except for this, this, or this reason, then you can be POTUS. I don’t like it, but that’s the way it is. As far as being raised abroad as an enemy combatant, it would be up to the voters to decide if that person should be president. We have enough conservative media today that can bring this to light to the voters. I would hope that this never happens, but there is nothing in the Constitution that stops this. This scenario that you mention could happen no matter what citizenship status that the parents have. Parents born in the U.S. could be anarchists and raise an anarchist child overseas as well as a non-U.S. set of parents.
We have enough Communists masquerading as Democrats today in this country that are NBCs that could be president at any time.
We are so close to agreement, my dear proud mother of a Marine Vet. And thank you for your families' service to our country.
Please note this excerpt from the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 ...
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;As you can see, the Constitution actually DOES provide for an exception to the NBC requirement. The "grandfather" clause exempts mere citizens who were alive at the time of Ratification because there were no NBC's yet; the country had only just been established. Most were born in a British Colony in the New World. They and their parents were bornBritish subjects and remained so until after The War of Independence.
Our primary point of disagreement is about whether any citizen is also a "natural born Citizen." This crucial national security provision of the Constitution recognizes "Persons," "Citizens," and "natural born Citizens."
Please help me understand?:
Why did the Framers make a distinction between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen" if there is no such difference?
Because you can be a naturalized citizen, not being born here but becoming a citizen later in life. My friend who works for the Passport agency processing applications to check for citizenship tells me there are several ways to be a citizen and not be born here. My aunt by marriage was born in Guatemala and married my uncle in 1955. After they were married a few years, she became a citizen through the naturalization process. She would not be eligible to be president.
Sorry, ma’am, but - Did you answer my question?
I think I did. I don’t know how much more plainer I can explain it. You can be born in this country, therefore you are a NB citizen, and you can apply for citizenship if you weren’t born in this country, therefore becoming a “naturalized” citizen, which is different from Natural Born. What didn’t I answer?
I’m afraid you will never get an answer to your question. As the saying goes “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
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.