Posted on 09/06/2012 12:35:47 PM PDT by kreitzer
Born a citizen by nature, not by the act of a statute. Aldo Mario Bellei was born a US Citizen (He was born in Italy) but he lost his citizenship because he failed to meet the requirements of the statute which granted him citizenship. A "natural" citizen has no artificial requirements because they weren't created by the operation of a law.
Being "born a citizen" is not the same thing as being a "natural" citizen.
I expect you'll eventually realize how your own statement applies to Wong Kim Ark one of these years. You seem like a relatively intelligent human being.
Naural born zealots are just as bad as Paulbots.
That’s why I asked you to show the evidence as to why you are correct.
You are correct this issue has been talked about on FR dozens of times, and there is no agreement.
Obama just appointed two liberal hacks of dubious credentials. They are certain to find a rationalle to vote liberal on each issue. However, “moderate” supreme court judges will weigh each issue and then decide which way to rule. Totally unfair.
You can kiss a certain part of my anatomy! You display your own ignorance. If you find my comments objectionable, prove me wrong! You can’t. You know it. All you have is ridicule and insinuation to bring to the table. You are quite an individual. Look up moron in the dictionary.
Not according to the controlling Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett
George Romney was born in Mexico.
The current occupant of the oval office doesn’t qualify even if his ‘daddy’ of record was born in the USA. Joel Gilbert’s “Dreams of my Real Father” identifies a plausible possibility that Frank Marshall Davis is actually the biological father of BHO . . .which would qualify Barry for the oval office under the “natural born” criteria . . .however, BHO’s false identity as the son of BHO Sr., his history of using that false identity for personal gain as well as his undisclosed past identity of ‘Soetero’ during his BAR vetting process still disqualifies him.
Oh good. He will need to be replaced. Lol.
“......you can only be President if you were born in the United States and BOTH parents must be born in the United States.”
Fortunate in that that standard for NBC is not that the parents themselves be NBCs as your scenario implies. NBC only requires CITIZEN parents. The parents may be Naturalized Citizens or any of the many combination of born citizen qualities.
Rather than being a huge obstacle to the Office of POTUS as your post suggests, the NBC requirement restricts only a very small portion of the US population. The vast majority of US citizens are born in the country to citizen parents....(NBCs). The NBC requirement, in truth isn’t very restrictive to the population. In fact it is the very minimum that could be reasonably applied....What’s the fuss trying to overturn even this minimal requirement?
Both George Romney’s parents were US citizens.
Huh? Please explain.
"Natural born citizen" is not a term defined within the Constitution itself, but the legal understanding at the time would have been based on it's meaning within English common law, which is the foundation of our legal system. The term "natural born subject" is clearly defined in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England as meaning someone who is born in a country as opposed to being naturalized. There is no reference to the parents being subjects/citizens.
Under the French legal system, natural born citizen did require citizen parents. But our legal system is not based on French law.
The English law which required perpetual Allegiance to the King? Is that the English law to which you are referring? This may come as a shock to you, but we threw off English subjecthood law through something called the freakin' "War of Independence!"
British Loyalists during the war remained British subjects after the war, despite having been born in the Colonies. The United States Government recognized their status as British Subjects, (As did the Brits) and did not force them to be Americans. Many of them moved to Canada.
As a matter of fact, the Brits recognized American seaman as British subjects (Through the action of that Partus Sequitur Patrem law of England) and pressed them into service as British Subjects. The United States Government objected to this activity profoundly through something called the freakin' "WAR OF 1812!"
When it was over, they recognized our claims on our citizens, and we didn't recognize theirs.
Well said but trying to have an “inteligent” discussion with these citizen parent advocates is like talking to a demorat! They have an agenda and common sense doesn’t register in this case.
The Posterity of We the People.
In longer form, it is the Posterity of We the People for whom the Constitution was ordained and established to secure.
-PJ
The point is in the posting guidelines at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1569660/posts
You obviously never studied (or did well) in History. The founders and framers of this country LOVED their heritage; they did not appreciate the lack of REPRESENTATION! Get a clue!
Every child I know rebels in some way against their parents. In your mind I guess that means they HATE their parents and disregard the values they were taught? They would adopt French law instead? Are you freakin serious?
Why would anyone remain loyal to a country who treated them like crap?
Most of the founders were born or had roots in England.
Thomas Jefferson’s mother was English.
Can I be more clear?
Sorry, didn’t know you were the posting police.
I think the criteria should be that the parents are here legally, therefore feet on the ground at birth would confer citizenship ... that is natural and not illegal.
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.