Posted on 04/27/2012 8:24:47 AM PDT by vadum
According to the Constitution, to be eligible for the presidency (or vice presidency), a person must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. The purpose of this restriction is to prevent a foreigner from becoming the nation’s chief executive.
How can people become U.S. citizens? There are just two ways; either they are born citizens or they become citizens later in life. In the first case, anyone who is a citizen by nature of his birth is a “natural born citizen.” In the second case, anyone who is a citizen of another country at birth, but is granted U.S. citizenship sometime afterward, is a naturalized citizen.
For example, John McCain, though born in Panama, is eligible for the presidency, because he became a citizen at birth. Similarly, had Gen. George Meade sought the presidency, he would have been eligible because, though born in Spain, he was a U.S. citizen by nature of his birth. Any non-naturalized U.S. citizen over the age of thirty-five with fourteen years of residence can be President of the United States.
Sadly, this common-sense, logical approach does not dissuade some conservative pundits from inventing a new constitutional requirement for the presidency. Despite the plain meaning of the text, they claim that, to be eligible, a person’s parents must also be U.S. citizens. A few even assert that one’s parents must also be natural born citizens. I’ll spare you a recitation of their nonsense about “native born” or Emerich de Vattel or whatnot. Finding things in the Constitution that are not there is for Democrats!
Now that Mitt Romney has become the presumptive Republican nominee, there is speculation that the junior senator from Florida will be his running mate. Marco Rubio’s parents were from Cuba and did not become U.S. citizens until he was four years old. Voices from the fringe are claiming that this means Rubio is not eligible – and they’re wrong.
Marco Rubio was born is Miami, Florida. He is, therefore, a natural born citizen of the United States. Per the Constitution, the citizenship status of his parents (or grandparents or anyone but himself) is irrelevant.
Let’s look at U.S. political history for more proof. Were there other instances of a presidential or vice presidential nominee with a foreign-born parent? You betcha!
The first presidential nominee of the Republican Party, in 1856, was John Charles Fremont. He was born in South Carolina to an American mother and a French father. Jean Charles Fremon was born a French citizen, near Lyon, France. He was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his son’s birth and never did become a citizen. Abraham Lincoln campaigned for Fremont. All the founders of the Republican Party campaigned for Fremont. One would be hard-pressed to find any suggestion at the time that Fremont’s birth made him ineligible for the presidency.
The seventh vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Chester Arthur, was born in Vermont to an American mother and a foreign-born father. William Arthur was born a British citizen – in County Antrim, Ireland – who did not become a U.S. citizen until his son was fourteen years old.
John Fremont, George Meade, Chester Arthur, John McCain, Marco Rubio – all eligible for the presidency. Republicans should not allow themselves to be distracted away from contesting the 2012 presidential campaign on the real issues.
Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the country. Back to Basics for the Republican Party is his acclaimed history of the GOP, cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision. His Grand Old Partisan website celebrates more than fifteen decades of Republican heroes and heroics. See www.grandoldpartisan.com for more information.
Perhaps you should consult with Arlen Specter, he was very persuasive inserting totally irrelevant Scottish Law B$ into the impeachment trial of the language expert.
Zak was once a FReeper. He posted mindless pro-GOP propagandist pablum (I don’t mean Conservative, either) and when he’d be questioned on it, he’d refuse to answer. He got the ZOT.
But according to the criteria being presented today, just being born on American soil would make ANYBODY a NBC.
That would include blacks, slaves, chinese, everybody, therefore we would not need the 14th amendment and yet we have the 14th amendment!!!
The passing of the 14th amendment destroys their NBC arguement, but it also exposes the fact that the 14th means something else.
Go back to post #31 and watch the video...
No... He is a citizen by birth no different than any “anchor baby”, not a Natural Born Citizen as defined by the Constitution and Common Law on whiuch the Constitution is based.
You can turn it and twist it anyway you want, but unless you propose ignoring the Constitution, it changes nothing.
I wish to hell all the race baiting open borders pimps would leave. No Brains would be a better screen name for you since obviously the one you have is a cover.
“Go back to post #31 and watch the video...”
Here I saved you the trouble of having to go back
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6b4YrXayzE
Sorry, but you're only looking at one word in the overall passage about "Citizens and Natives" as translated from the French words "Des citoyens et naturels" ... It is talking about citizens and natural citizenship at birth through their fathers.
Well then the precedent has been established, so all these stupid arguments are just not relevant anymore.
Long Live the King. And his lawyers.
Very good, but I would say that the three kinds of citizens are 1)naturalized, 2)Native born, 3)Natural born. Many confuse Native born with Natural born and there is a difference.
To that pojnt you are correct, which brings us further down the next road ofverifying whether Cuba was a US Protectorate at the time of the Senator’s birth as it relates to his father and possibly mother (not assuming she had previously been naturalized) or had the legal sovernty of Cuba changed prior to that date.
Apparently we must go by whatever the King says it is, since not one citizen has standing to challenge what he says.
What if they were just deemed to be citizens under ritual Scottish Law?
Can't you give this cr@p a rest?
Indians were not made Citizens under the 14th either, how about that.
You absolutely correct.
It’s called a treaty
For those of us that live in the real world all you can state for a fact is Chief Justice Roberts was appointed by GWB.
The totality of the rest of your post is prime fodder for the likes of the ACLU, and not worthy of a forum that is known for understanding plain English. You on the other display a talent that could produce several books explaining what three simple words mean, to helps us idiots that already know all too well what they mean.
As a slave, you have NO RIGHTS
Yes and which satisfies NBC.
Already done, no need for any further debate.</sarcasm>
Nancy Pelosie last week proposed that the first amendment be ammended and of course they have actually just ignored the 2nd for years. When I was born, no one not even the police questioned my right to carry a firearm in my car, they really weren't all that comfortable with slapped on the hip firearms but I never got stopped toting a shotgun or rifle.
Younger people will have to take up that argument, I am done, if I don't die soon of natural causes, I imagine the pain pill treatment plan that Zero plans to offer will speed my departure. It will become law, no doubt in my mind.
That wording differentiates between “citizen” and “natural born citizen.”
Yes, but a "citizen" could be naturalized. A naturalized citizen is a citizen. So that still makes only two categories.
Both senators and representatives can be foreign born and naturalized. BTW here is a list of current and former US politicians who were born in foreign countries.
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.