Posted on 12/07/2004 6:53:41 PM PST by RWR8189
It is an exciting read.
Famous Last Name: A Burr duels for the Senate. (National Review)
Hamilton was born in the Bahamas, he was not a natural born citizen of any of the united states.
I was taught that that provison was put in specifically to prevent Hamilton from becoming President.
It's all about context, though. Compared to the times, Hamilton was very big government. A big reason he and Jefferson did not get along. And who can blame the anti-federalists for being less-than-enamored with Hamilton? Look at the war they had just fought to get away from a strong government.
Hamilton was truly great. Burr wanted to be but wasn't.
Hamilton was born in the Bahamas, he was not a natural born citizen of any of the united states.
You may want to review Article 2, Section 5.
Ack. Article 2, Section 1, CLAUSE 5.
What do you know, I mis-remembered that clause. The sad part is that history teachers throughout my history have stated this as well and even added that the founding fathers included it to eliminate Hamilton from becoming President one day. I guess they were wrong.
I actually read somewhere that it was he that instigated the divorce! His wife was much younger, and was supposed to have a fortune. She didn't, and he was mad at her, I think. So he divorced her.
Wrong, my friend. When the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1787 it was explicitly understood that a "grandfather" clause was fully in effect for such matters. It was "upon ratification" that those clauses had the force of law - Hamilton could have run, and it's too bad he didn't have the chance. Surely you jest.
Amen. Burr was an opportunist and a hellraiser, but as I understand it, Hamilton was asking for it. Hamilton will be burning in hell anyway for nationalizing states' debts and starting the wave of antiConstitutional b.s like the bank of America.
Thanks for the link. It was a good article and indicates Senator-Elect Burr did not inherit the same narcissist genes of Gore Vidal and Al Gore.
There was some question in the 1968 campaign about whether George Romney would have qualified, since he was born outside the U.S. (to American citizen parents), but he resolved that with his "brainwashing" comment. The courts haven't been asked to clarify whether someone born by C-section would be eligible.
Indeed he didn't! He will make a fine Senator.
So I can assume then that like modern-day Democrats, you have no use for the Constitution?
US Constitution
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 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; 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.
Now if find any Austrian born actors who were citizens of the US before September of 1787, they are indeed eligble to become President -- as long as they have been resident for 14 years. ;~))
Is this a statement or a question?
OK, I wasn't sure. Were I alive duruing the ratification debates, I would have been an anti-Federalist in the vain of Patrick Henry. I view the actions in Philidelphia in 1787 as centralizing too much power at the Federal level. Additionally, there is a view that the Constitutional Convention acted illegally in that the mandate of those assembled was to revise the Articles of Confederation, not write a new constitution. Your statement used the word phrase 'no use', denoting zero percent. There are elements of the US Constitution I embrace, such as the seperation of powers doctrine, the Bill of Rights (second and tenth are my favorites) and its elegant brevety. So, yes, I have some use for the US Constitution.
OK. But Henry's objections centered on the ideas of a Standing Army and a Commander in Chief which he predicted would quickly lead to a British style monarchy and loss of Constitutional protections.
Two hundred and twentyfive years later, longer than any secular document has every survived, we still have a standing army as allowed by the Constitution and still don't have a monarchy or tyranny.
Granted, the Constitution has been bent, folded and mutilated often, mostly in the last 50 or so years, but it has yet to be broken beyond repair and Henry's warning have proven to be alarmist.
You say if you had been around in 1787, you would have joined with Henry in opposing the Constitution. I suspect that if Henry were here today with the benefit of 225 years of hindsight, he would would say he was wrong and that the document championed by those "damn Federalists" has preserved and even expanded those liberties Henry cherished far better than anything would have proposed at that time because of the very fact it centralized not simply power, but accountability to the people.
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.