Posted on 09/06/2012 12:35:47 PM PDT by kreitzer
The Constitution is as clear as the nose on your face. According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents. The framers, concerned about destructive foreign influences at a time of the founding of the nation, were wary that the foreign biases of parents could tragically influence the country’s leadership, especially during its formative years. Being largely from England themselves, with British parents, the framers also knew and lived among Tories who did not want to see a new nation arise, but who, comfortable in their noble status and wealth under the British Crown, desired to continue to be ruled by King George III. They did their best to prevent the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and sought to undermine and subvert the ensuing Revolutionary War effort. Later, not willing to give up, British of their ilk attempted to retake control of the “colonies” and invaded Washington, D.C., in 1812, only to burn down the White House, among other dastardly deeds.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I think this was posted several days ago.
Natural born citizen just means an American citizen at birth.
It is clear that we must have our Supreme Court justices pontificating on volatile political matters. What can possibly go wrong?
Scalia is probably reluctant to answer a question that may yet come before the court and one which he hasn’t researched.
Therefore his “I don’t know” may be legit. However, the rest of his response indicates that’s he is leaning toward natural born being the same as native born.
And therefore I conclude that he is somehow unaware of or disagrees with the main argument in the eligibility controversy.
So putting aside whether or not Obamma was born in the United States, based on this statement alone, he does not quality to be president, since his dad was not an American citizen.
That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents.
_________________________________________
At the time of the writing of the Constitution, I had ancestors who fit this requirement...
Not NBC myself, I still am a “birther” because of my family members...
and because it not only makes sense...
Its the right thing to do...
Nonsense. A "natural born citizen" is a citizen who was born a citizen, as opposed to one who was naturalized after birth.
It does?
“Natural born citizen just means an American citizen at birth.”
Huh? Please explain.
That's not how I understand it. Please cite your source. Thanks.
Oh, and welcome to FR.
wrong.
do a bit of homework before spouting off when you know nothing about the subject matter. your feelings on the subject are insufficient
All the Tories people seem to be worried about (citizens of British parents, etc.) were eligible to become President. Several of the Signers of the Constitution were even foreign born and were eligible to become President at the adoption of the Constitution. If King George had a son who was a U.S. citizen at the time would be eligible to become president for pete's sake!
So what is the confusion? The framers would have been more suspicious of those living at the time to not have America's best interests at heart if they were born in England, yet became U.S. citizens, so WHY SHOULD THEY WORRY ABOUT FUTURE GENERATIONS?
Anyone with common sense (and no agenda) can plainly see that natural born means born of the soil (English law). The only time citizen parents is required is if their baby was born in a foreign land, the child took on the citizenship of the parent.
This is SO EASY! There are natural citizens and naturalized citizens. END OF STORY.
There are FReepers who believe otherwise but they are very misguided.
Even if this was posted several days ago I am glad it was posted again. Most of us don’t wire ourselves to this site 24/7 and we tend to miss a few items and are grateful for the repeat.
So what point are you making?
accrding to you, any anchor baby could be president.
and this is simply not the case. at all.
I’m afraid it doesn’t.
No it doesn't. Aldo Mario Bellei was a citizen at birth. The Supreme court took away his citizenship because he did not meet the residency requirements. Natural born citizens do not have any residency requirements. Rogers was a citizen at birth by congressional statute. A natural citizen does not require any statute or any amendment to be a citizen, they are a citizen by nature.
According to whom?
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.