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

Skip to comments.

Time to turn to the real issue, 'Does Obama qualify as ‘natural-born'?
4/27/11 | Joe Lynch

Posted on 04/27/2011 7:25:39 PM PDT by westcoastwillieg

Time to turn to the real issue, 'Does Obama qualify as ‘natural-born'?

The issue with Obama’s eligibility not only involves his place of birth but also whether he qualifies as a 'natural-born-citizen'.

After Obama played his 'Trump' card his supporters are trying to divert voters away from the 'natural-born' issue and obfuscate the definition of 'natural-born'.

It is generally believed the Founders considered 'natural-born' to mean born in country to parents who were citizens at the time of the person's birth.

As Holmes said to Watson, "The game is afoot." Attempts have already been made to use 'native-born' interchangeably with 'natural-born' and, as yet, there is no Supreme Court decision nor does the constitution define 'natural-born'.

While Obama has shown his birth certificate it proves that his father was not a citizen but the jury hasn't decided if he qualifies as 'natural-born'.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; citizen; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-110 next last

1 posted on 04/27/2011 7:25:46 PM PDT by westcoastwillieg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg

Yes.


2 posted on 04/27/2011 7:27:56 PM PDT by Wolfstar ("If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his friend." Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
How does he qualify as a “Natural Born Citizen”? Native born - yes, Natural Born, no.
3 posted on 04/27/2011 7:32:06 PM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg

“nor does the constitution define ‘natural-born’”

It doesn’t define “and” either.


4 posted on 04/27/2011 7:32:48 PM PDT by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge MA grad student. Many conservative Christians my age out there? __ Click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg

Fox has talked about McCain & Arthur insofar as place of birth was concerned but never addressed citizenship of parents as a qualifier in itself. Further, Fox has failed to address (or even to pan or focus the camera on) father’s race which is listed as African, a nonrace. These “anomalies” are newsworthy. What are we all missing?


5 posted on 04/27/2011 7:33:12 PM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Since there is a huge “area of silence” surrounding this in the media you know this means it is terrified about it. I was watching CNN Tuesday nite and the attempts to obfuscate the issue were totally transparent and the fear was palpable. Obama's pollster was hysterical. Anderson Cooper perplexed and some other Leftist whore way over his head.
6 posted on 04/27/2011 7:37:44 PM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg
BO/BS could have answered that question in 2007 by releasing his long form birth certificate when he declared his candidacy. Instead he has spent more than two million dollars on a team of lawyers to prevent having to release any documentation and produced the phony birth certificate today.

The time for demanding that documentation has longed since passed. He needs to be removed from office and charged with treason!
7 posted on 04/27/2011 7:38:57 PM PDT by Defend Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg

Obama’s playing coy with his birth certificate wasted millions of Conservative-hours on a false trail, while all the while he is wide open for impeachment for his proven (from his own Web site and video) involvement in an illegal—and that assessment is from Minnesota law enforcement—Internet gambling operation, specifically the “Dinner with Barack” and “Backstage with Barack” lotteries. An AFSCME counsel said there is no way to run an interstate raffle legally and that it constitutes racketeering.

I have been saying this for years only to be blown off with wet-blanket remarks about “Who is going to enforce the law against the Chosen One?” If the court of public opinion had given this a tenth of the publicity it gave to the birther wild goose chase, Obama would have had to clean out his desk long ago.

When people listened to me in 2000 (specifically ONE columnist with national syndication), the anti-Second Amendment Million Mom March turned into a ruined heap of smoking rubble (figuratively speaking). How about listening to me now and helping take down the Disaster in Chief for a genuine reason that is a matter of proven record? All we need is one Republican member of Congress to put impeachment into motion.


8 posted on 04/27/2011 7:39:12 PM PDT by Winged Hussar (http://moveonpleasemoveon.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg
.....but the jury hasn't decided if he qualifies as 'natural-born'.

Juror number 9 votes he does not qualify as a natural born citizen and should be impeached.

9 posted on 04/27/2011 7:42:48 PM PDT by afnamvet (I stand with Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defend Liberty

And by spending 2 million dollars, he wasted millions of hours of the time of opponents who were gulled into following a false trail. I have been saying this for years but nobody listened to me. A few thousand of hours from our side invested in the illegal lottery he ran to fund his campaign would have taken him down in 2008 and can take him down now. Involvement in a crime, and MN law enforcement said these promotions were illegal, is cause for impeachment.

I would not put it past Obama to create a deliberate air of ambiguity about his birth certificate to waste our side’s time and make us look like idiots when he finally put up the birth certificate. Ever hear the story of Br’er Rabbit and the Tar Baby? The more you hit it, the more stuck you get. The birthers now have tar all over them.


10 posted on 04/27/2011 7:43:20 PM PDT by Winged Hussar (http://moveonpleasemoveon.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg

The play has ended, the audience has exited the theater, and the cleaning crew is sweeping the aisles. The thespian who thinks there is any point in taking an encore now is probably too drunk to understand anyhow.


11 posted on 04/27/2011 7:43:20 PM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Yes the jury (SCOTUS)has!!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2710016/posts


12 posted on 04/27/2011 7:44:49 PM PDT by Forrestfire (("To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society." Theodore Roosevelt))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tlb

IF Obama is natural born, so is the son of SADDAM HUSSEIN, born of an American mother!


13 posted on 04/27/2011 7:49:42 PM PDT by outhousepatrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg
The House of Representatives definition for "natural born Citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"

Parent's is PLURAL, not one BOTH.  Obama's father was NOT a US citizen, so no, Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.  Obama's father's allegience was to a foreign country.

Office Citizenship Age Residency (or years citizen)
Commander in Chief natural born Citizen 35 14 years resident
Senator Citizen 30 9 years a Citizen
Represantative Citizen 25 7 years a Citizen

14 posted on 04/27/2011 7:50:18 PM PDT by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar
would not put it past Obama to create a deliberate air of ambiguity about his birth certificate to waste our side’s time and make us look like idiots when he finally put up the birth certificate. Ever hear the story of Br’er Rabbit and the Tar Baby? The more you hit it, the more stuck you get.The birthers now have tar all over them.

BO/BS made this veiled and desperate attempt today because it is hurting his ability to function. The more the issue of his phony BC is raised the more unambiguous the issue becomes. Add to the fact multiple Social Security numbers have been associated with his name and the fact one he has been using since 1977 was issued to an elderly man from Connecticut even though BO/BS lived in Hawaii at the time and never lived in Connecticut, then it becomes even more clear this is the biggest Constitutional crisis of our time because BO/BS is illegally occupying the Oval Office.
15 posted on 04/27/2011 7:55:51 PM PDT by Defend Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
"Since there is a huge “area of silence” surrounding this in the media you know this means it is terrified about it. I was watching CNN Tuesday nite and the attempts to obfuscate the issue were totally transparent and the fear was palpable. Obama's pollster was hysterical. Anderson Cooper perplexed and some other Leftist whore way over his head. "

Keep up the scare!

16 posted on 04/27/2011 7:57:03 PM PDT by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg

Yes ... it is time to answer that question. The bottom line is that without a Constitutional amendment, the Article II phrase "natural born" must legally be perceived and interpreted through the eyes of the Founders at the time it was penned. After fighting a long and bloody war for independence from Britain, the purpose of that Article II clause was to prevent the usurpation of this newly formed nation by a foreign power (especially, at the time, Britain). Who believes the Founders intended that children, born and raised by subjects of foreign nations who had not renounced their allegiance to the foreign power, who were not living at the time of the signing of the Constitution should have access to lead the most powerful office in the United States government? People who care more about Obama and their notion of "racial justice" (abbreviated as "racist") than they do about the Constitution and this nation founded upon it. That's who. Who does not believe this ... Patriots! And I am proudly one.


17 posted on 04/27/2011 7:59:24 PM PDT by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg

A good case can be made that the intent of the original framers was that “natural born citizen” described someone born on U.S. soil of U.S. parents. But, since no definitive ruling on this point has ever been made by the U.S. Supreme Court, predicting how the court would rule is a bit problematic.

Did the framers intend that prayer in public schools should be prohibited? Did the framers believe that their document would lead to the indictment on hate crime charges of those professing faithfulness to Christian scripture? Did they believe that the Commerce Clause would allow the Federal Government to regulate any activity that struck their fancy?

I will be so bold as to state that the courts will not touch this issue, and if they do, they will cling to the 14th Amendment to proclaim that Obama is eligible. And dont’ expect the politicians to step up to the plate on this issue, including all of the Republican politicians. They will all circle the wagons on any attack against one of their own, an elitist politician.


18 posted on 04/27/2011 8:06:58 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

Is it your contention that any person of mixed parentage is not a “natural born citizen” of any country? That hardly seems plausible.


19 posted on 04/27/2011 8:15:45 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Winged Hussar

First, that two million dollars he had spent was other people’s money. You would think that those people are wondering why he put them through this.

Second, if this is really a legitimate BC, then he had absolutely no reason to spend that kind of money. The fact that he did, gives credence to any who suspect this BC’s validity. He will of course, blame others, but again, he brought it on himself.

Third, his arrogance and obfiscation is also responsible for an honorable man’s court martial and incarceration.

Fourth, now he acts like it was our fault that we actually put him through this, when he clearly brought this on himself.

I have nothing but contempt for this man.


20 posted on 04/27/2011 8:17:51 PM PDT by chopperman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: outhousepatrol

>>> IF Obama is natural born, so is the son of SADDAM HUSSEIN, born of an American mother!

A dumb non-sequitor unless the son of SADDAM HUSSEIN born in Hawaii or another US state. That’s the issue, and it appears to be now settled. Just as Bachmann, Coulter, Rove, and Krauthammer warned us.

It’s retarded to be picking at it now when there are mountains of genuine issues to beat Obama in 2012.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results — Albert Einstein


21 posted on 04/27/2011 8:24:32 PM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

Also, suppose Obama Sr. became a U.S. citizen prior to Obama Jr’s birth, but did not renounce Kenyan/UK citizenship. By your logic, Obama would still fail to qualify as a natural born citizen, despite being born to two U.S. citizen parents, because one of his parents would have owed allegiance to a foreign country (as well as owing allegiance to the U.S.). Do you mean to argue that the child of a dual-citizen cannot be a natural born citizen? If not, why not?


22 posted on 04/27/2011 8:25:23 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

Finally, suppose the identity and/or citizenship of a child’s parent is unknown (an unfortunately common occurrence nowadays) - is that child not a natural born citizen?


23 posted on 04/27/2011 8:28:22 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

I am somewhat limited in my skills, but could you do me a favor and forward your posting to Sean Hannity...He is blind to this and insulted 2 callers and me today with his blow off of what you have presented here. Thanks!


24 posted on 04/27/2011 8:41:07 PM PDT by jennings2004 (Sarah Palin: "The bright light at the end of a very dark tunnel!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

I am somewhat limited in my skills, but could you do me a favor and forward your posting to Sean Hannity...He is blind to this and insulted 2 callers and me today with his blow off of what you have presented here. Thanks!


25 posted on 04/27/2011 8:45:11 PM PDT by jennings2004 (Sarah Palin: "The bright light at the end of a very dark tunnel!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Because the whole point of the NBC clause is to assure that the president is loyal only to the United States. The framers were smart enough to know that a child gets his or her values from their parents and thus the requirement that they must be American citizens.

Do you really think that the founders intended for a person whos mother made it anywhere to American soil just as the baby was born is qualified to be president? Even though the mother and father could be died in the wool communists loyal to an enemy of the United States? I don’t think so.

This issue must be decided by the supreme court. Let the court cases begin !! No way for the courts to dodge the issue on standing. SCOTUS had better get warmed up.


26 posted on 04/27/2011 8:47:43 PM PDT by precisionshootist (Donald Trump Is a Patriot first and a businessman second.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: chopperman

+1!


27 posted on 04/27/2011 8:48:20 PM PDT by jennings2004 (Sarah Palin: "The bright light at the end of a very dark tunnel!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg

Actually, the time to turn to that issue was three years ago, when Premier Hussein first proposed running for office.

And the answer is clearly, “No!”


28 posted on 04/27/2011 8:51:37 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg

When Obama went to Indonesia did he not become a citizen of that country? If so he could not have dual citizenship under US law and would have relinquished US citizenship by default. Then did he ever re-apply for Us citizenship? Still a lot of questions to be answered.


29 posted on 04/27/2011 8:51:59 PM PDT by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg
This is a LOSER issue. You may be right. Matter of fact, you probably are right. However...you will be hoisted by your own petard.

Focusing on this birth certificate issue will be nothing but a distraction...and will NEVER NEVER NEVER lead to getting this guy out of office. Should it? Probably. But it NEVER WILL. It is a LOSER issue. The average American has the attention span of a gnat and will not follow the argument.

You can be right as rain...but if you are not focusing on an issue that the people care about...they will tun you out...and 1) stay home in 2012...or 2) Vote for BHO again.

Doubt me? Let the GOP keep this up and BHO will walk into another term with ease. There is a smart way to fight a war...and a dumb way...and this is the dumb way. HEck...if I was BHO...I would have NOT released my long form BC. I would have PRAYED for a birther to get the GOP nomination then rope-a-doped him into this being the main issue. Then...2 weeks out...BAM.

Again....this is a loser issue. You might get worked up about it...but it will NEVER get BHO out of office. NEVER. What will is revealing what he has done to this country...and you can't do both...the American Public doesn't have the capacity to walk and chew gum at the same time anymore ;-)

30 posted on 04/27/2011 8:56:34 PM PDT by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

I didn’t say that. In fact I didn’t say anything about mixed heritage. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.


31 posted on 04/27/2011 9:23:53 PM PDT by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer

The US allows for dual citizenship. Indonesia does not. I would think that someone with dual citizenship would not be eligible to run for POTUS for obvious reasons


32 posted on 04/27/2011 9:28:19 PM PDT by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

See #26


33 posted on 04/27/2011 9:30:39 PM PDT by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

I did not say anything about mixed heritage, I said mixed parentage. In other words, if someone has a U.S. citizen mother and, say, a Canadian citizen father, your logic would hold that the person is not a natural-born U.S. citizen (because of the Canadian father), and that the person is not a natural-born Canadian citizen (because of the American mother).


34 posted on 04/27/2011 9:34:37 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist
That doesn't answer my question - suppose a child's parents are both U.S. citizens, but one (or both) parents are also citizens of a foreign nation (e.g., they owe allegiance to the U.S., but also to another nation). Is the child a natural-born citizen?
35 posted on 04/27/2011 9:36:47 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NELSON111
Again....this is a loser issue. You might get worked up about it...but it will NEVER get BHO out of office. NEVER.
 
Some, but not all of us, have never believed that the NBC matter would get Obama out of office.  Personally, I have always thought that the only way to get him out of office is to vote him out in 2012.
 
However, the question of who is a "natural born citizen" under the constitutional provison dealing with presidential qualifications is an unsettled constitutional matter.  I believe that it needs to be settled by the USSC for all future presidential elections, once and for all.
 
It has come up from time to time over the past 140 years and it is time to get the matter settled. 

36 posted on 04/27/2011 9:37:14 PM PDT by Let_It_Be_So
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
Wrong. A U.S. citizen who obtains foreign citizenship loses U.S. citizenship only if (1) the person obtains foreign citizenship with the intent of renouncing U.S. citizenship and (2) the person is at least 18 years of age. A parent cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of a child.
37 posted on 04/27/2011 9:50:18 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
I'm not sure how that could happen? when you become a naturalized citizen of the US I believe you must renounce your foreign allegiance.

That being said it's irrelevant as Obamas's father was NOT a US citizen.

38 posted on 04/27/2011 10:02:51 PM PDT by precisionshootist (Donald Trump Is a Patriot first and a businessman second.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

It isn’t ‘my logic’. It is what is in the congressional record. If you don’t like it, change it.


39 posted on 04/27/2011 10:18:20 PM PDT by Netizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg

Here is my question for the sake of comparisons: My DH’s parents were born in Mexico, one in 1906 and the other in 1910. They came here in about 1923 to escape the revolutions going on in Mexico. They did not know each other until later. They were from different states in Mexico. They married in the US and had 10 kids, 2 of whom served in the military and retired from the military. Neither of them became US Citizens, but did hold the green card and paid taxes and lived by the laws of the nation. The kids were educated in CA and by order of their parents were to speak English at school and Spanish at home.
I contend my husband and his siblings are native born citizens but not natural born citizens. What say the experts on the subject? Am I right or wrong?


40 posted on 04/27/2011 10:38:52 PM PDT by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defend Liberty

In addition, I would add, that this is his way of taking the wind out of the sales of Trump and making him look foolish as a potential candidate...
I really don’t think Trump would win the nomination let alone the WH BUT he is not afraid to open up cans of worms and take it to the fraud in the WH. If this document is a fraud after all the chest thumping Trump did today, Trump will look like a fool.


41 posted on 04/27/2011 10:42:22 PM PDT by celtic gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
Also, suppose Obama Sr. became a U.S. citizen prior to Obama Jr’s birth, but did not renounce Kenyan/UK citizenship.

That isn't possible. To become a naturalized U.S. citizen you have to renounce all other allegiances.

42 posted on 04/27/2011 10:55:13 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
In other words, if someone has a U.S. citizen mother and, say, a Canadian citizen father, your logic would hold that the person is not a natural-born U.S. citizen (because of the Canadian father), and that the person is not a natural-born Canadian citizen (because of the American mother).

True.

43 posted on 04/27/2011 11:05:15 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: westcoastwillieg
I'll post this again, although I know it won't do any good for the true believers.

From SCOTUS decision US v Wong Kim Ark (1898):

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words (citizen and natural born citizen), either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

...

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

44 posted on 04/27/2011 11:38:11 PM PDT by GunRunner (10 Years of Freeping...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

Oh I guess Arnold can be POTUS then. Fail


45 posted on 04/27/2011 11:43:40 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Arnold was born in Austria. Read more carefully next time.


46 posted on 04/27/2011 11:50:38 PM PDT by GunRunner (10 Years of Freeping...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

The English common law did not distinguish between a “natural born subject” and a naturalized subject. “The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 790 (1866).). Under English common law, once a person became naturalized, he or she was deemed to be a “natural born subject.” Hence, under English common law a naturalized citizen was considered a “natural born subject.” Hence, giving the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning as a “natural born subject” would have allowed a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President of the new Republic. But Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mandates that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. The clause is written as “No person except . . . shall be eligible . . .” which means that one must be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President, with no exceptions. The way we have interpreted the “natural born Citizen” clause since the beginning of the Republic, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But assuming the “natural born Citizen” clause had the same meaning as a “natural born subject,” with the Constitution as written it would not have conveyed in any manner that a naturalized citizen was not eligible to be President. No where do we find in the Constitution any statement that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. To reach this conclusion, we have always relied upon the “natural born Citizen” clause itself which we have compared with the fact that the Framers prescribed in Article I that naturalized citizens were eligible to be Senators (”nine Years a Citizen of the United States”) and Representatives (seven Years a Citizen of the United States”) . The manner in which the Framers provided that Senators and Representatives needed to be “Citizen of the United States” for only a certain amount of years shows that the naturalized citizen class was included within “Citizens of the United States” and not within “natural born Citizens.” This shows that naturalized citizens were not part of “natural born Citizens.” Hence, equating the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” to a “natural born subject” would have allowed naturalized persons to be President, a result that we have rejected from the beginning of the Constitutional Republic. Such a meaning would have created an exception to the “natural born Citizen” clause which would have eviscerated the clause itself. Additionally, since Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 to make uniform the naturalization laws, such a meaning would have given Congress the power to decide who could be President by simply changing the naturalization requirements. The Framers, fearing that Congress would allow foreign influence to creep into the office of President if it were given the power to select the President, did not give Congress such power.

Irrefutable point: Article II, section 1, pa. 5 states: “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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” That limits who may be President to persons who meet the following requirements:
Those who are 35 years old or older, AND
Those who have been a resident of the US for 14 years or longer, AND
Those who are natural born citizens, OR
Those who were US citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted

Why did the Constitutional Convention include that last exception, allowing those who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted to be President? The ONLY POSSIBLE REASON FOR THAT EXCEPTION IS THAT WITHOUT IT, NO ONE COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY BECOME PRESIDENT, BECAUSE NO ONE COULD SATISFY THE CONSTRAINT OF BEING A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

If “natural born citizen” means “born on US soil, with parents who are US citizens,” then it would in fact be true that no one alive at the time could have satisfied the “natural born citizen” requirement, in which case there is a good reason for the exception.

But if “natural born citizen” means essentially the same as “natural born subject” (differing only to the extent that a citizen differs from a subject,) then any citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted would satisfy the “natural born citizen” requirement, so there would be no need for the exception, and its inclusion in the Constitution makes no sense. No sense at all.

You are refuted beyond any reasonable doubt.


47 posted on 04/27/2011 11:55:11 PM PDT by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

That wasn’t my point. He is a naturalized citizen. If Natural born subject can include a naturalized subject - be the same thing after naturalization, then by your logic in stating that NBC and NBS are the same, then a Naturalized citizen of the US is the same as a natural born citizen and Arnold is qualified to run.

Since the very first days of this nation it has been recognized that this is NOT the case as Naturalized citizens are not allowed to run. Otherwise Arnold could be POTUS.

Try critical thinking instead of telling me to read.


48 posted on 04/27/2011 11:57:36 PM PDT by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
No. You are incorrect.

Read the language of Wong Kim Ark again, keeping in mind that that case came after the 14th Amendment.

49 posted on 04/28/2011 12:02:00 AM PDT by GunRunner (10 Years of Freeping...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Danae
Let's try it again!

...therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject.

The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

50 posted on 04/28/2011 12:05:31 AM PDT by GunRunner (10 Years of Freeping...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-110 next last

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.

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