Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: zarodinu

Wrong, but nice try. Reach back tot he days of the founders and see what it was they were trying to acvoid in a POTUS ... divided loyalties. Having citizenship in two countries at birth is divided loyalties. If born on a ship at sea under no nation’s flag, what would determine if natural born or not? ... Both parents being American citizens would make the child a natural born citizen.


10 posted on 12/07/2008 11:58:37 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: MHGinTN

I believe my link (pg 888-889) show the founders did not share your view of natural born citizenship. Furthermore, there is evidence that at least one former US president (Chester Arthur) was born of one non-US citizen.


12 posted on 12/08/2008 12:10:58 AM PST by zarodinu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: MHGinTN

The U.S. has never recognized dual citizenship. One is either a citizen or not a citizen. If one is a citizen, one is a citizen by birth (i.e., a natural born citizen), or by naturalization. There is not, nor has there ever been, a third “type” of citizenship.

Yes, the founders wanted to ensure that a President was wholly loyal to the United States, but they sought to do so by requiring that the President be a citizen from birth, not through naturalization.

Your argument sounds nice, but, frankly, it lacks Constitutional, statutory, historical, and case-law support of any kind.


13 posted on 12/08/2008 12:19:26 AM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson