Posted on 05/01/2012 9:32:22 AM PDT by GregNH
“a combination of native born citizen and naturalized citizens”
Ah, the old “naturalized at birth” citizens. They frolic in the fields of Nowhereland with unicorns, leprechauns, and furry talking animals.
Good write-up found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause
Personally, it appears that over the centuries, efforts have been made to relax this clause. If I were asked my opinion (you may, or may not agree with it), I would say that a “Citizen” is anyone born of American Parents, or born in the territories of America. But a “Natural Born Citizen” is a child born with both parents being US Citizens, and is either born in the US territories, military bases or embassees.
There is only 1 office in the land that has the “Natural Born Citizen” clause, and I feel this clause should be tightened, nor relaxed. Not because I despise Obama - but because I feel it is the right thing to do; now and forever more.
“Isn’t there a problem with this statement?”
No, so far as I know, unless you take it to mean that’s the minimum standard for citizenship from birth. The minimum is, of course, much lower according to the 14th amendment.
FYI
I'M DONE WITH FOX NEWS.
There can be no explanation other than this is just blatant dishonesty. No mistakes have been made. This is intentional misleading of their audience.
I question the timing.
bookmark
Chester A Arthur’s Father was not an American citizen until he (Chester) was 14 years old.
John Fremont’s father was a French citizen when he (John) was born.
If the definition you hold to was enforced, Arthur would not have been eligible to be President and Fremont would not have been eligible to be the Republican candidate in 1856.
It’s been looked at before. Vattel’s definition was not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, even though the Founder’s knew his works very well.
I think it is great timing. It will, if he follows up with this as he should, also eliminate the possibility of the GOP nominating an ineligible candidate.
“The term does not speak to the legal circumstances of a birth, merely to its location.”
Huh? How could the location you were born make you a citizen without “legal circumstances” coming into play? Law controls what country the location belongs to, as well as the legal status of your parents. You can’t very well be born a U.S. citizen without being born on U.S. territory and without either one or both of your parents being citizens or your parents being subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law.
If you are a citizen, and there was no law that “naturalized” you, are you a natural born citizen?
Sounds like this section 1401 should have been called “Natural Born Citizen Defined” if it means what Bret is claiming.
ok it also applies if we are talking about a father.
Interesting that this comes out today. Last night I watched a piece Bret Baier did on Marco Rubio possibly being named vice president. At the end of the piece, he brought up a number of problems that could possibly hinder his candidacy such as Rubio’s problem with the party credit card, his friendship with someone currently under investigation, but notably, not one word on his Natural Born Citizen problem.
I guess Bret has heard from a few people about that situation already. I know Marco has.
It is quite obvious now why the republicans have refused to challenge Obama’s presidential qualifications. They have their own little candidates that they want to slip under the rug in order to bypass the Constitution. If they say anything about Obama, they will have to disqualify their candidates as well.
Neither of the parties is interested in upholding the Constitution any more. This saying could not be more true: I’ve not left the republican party. The republican party left me.
@http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8
USC : Title 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
Can't you grasp that your link "8 USC Chapter 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY" falls under TITLE 8?
TITLE - Chapter - Section.
You, apparently, aren't that smart after all.
“It is a matter of allegiance”
What lies behind this simple statement settling the issue for certain minds is the entire madness of the style of Constitutional construction known as “original intent.” You divine that they were interested in preventing all but those with birth allegiance from being president, and therefore conclude no one with possible dual loyalties can possibly be president.
It matters not what they intended, but what they say. What they intended can help elucidate what they said, but it cannot add to it. The Constitution does not say “No person except those born without possible loyalties to other nations shall be eligible to be President.” That’s what you think it says, or want it to say, based on your pinpointing the allegiance motivation. However, just because they were motivated by concerns over allegiance does not mean native borns aren’t also natural borns. Especially since the 14th amendment came so long after the Founder generation.
One is a "native" of the place where one's "nativity", i.e., one's birth, occurred. Of course, in most cases that makes one a citizen of that place, although I dispute this interpretation for so-called "anchor babies". So, I grant your point that "native" is freighted with legal considerations and I could have worded that differently. My point, however, is that there is a persistent tendency to confuse "natural born" and "native born". They are not the same. I also believe that there is a calculated effort to propagate this confusion as a way to "prepare the ground" should it ever come to the Supreme Court.
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.