Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kreitzer
The Constitution says, "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."

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.

14 posted on 09/06/2012 1:04:00 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: New Jersey Realist

it is very simple... it’s people like you that attempt to muddy the waters

a “natural born citizen” is a citizen naturally, as there are no alternatives.

for there to be no alternatives, a person must be born on the soil of two citizen parents.


23 posted on 09/06/2012 1:12:27 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: New Jersey Realist
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.

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.

54 posted on 09/06/2012 2:23:44 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: New Jersey Realist
NJ,

I disagree. The framers wanted to ensure that the singular executive of the United States — the president — had no allegiance to any country other than the United States. Native-born is born in the US or having US citizenship from one of their parents. Native-born does not exclude joint citizenship (or eligibility for such) of another country. Natural born citizen, a qualification placed only on the office of the President, does exclude such. Not only was the present resident of the White House eligible for British citizenship, he has been eligible for Kenyan and Indonesian citizenship.

76 posted on 09/06/2012 3:44:02 PM PDT by mason-dixon (As Mason said to Dixon, you have to draw the line somewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: New Jersey Realist
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?

The Hon. Joseph Story addressed this in his book "A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States ..." (1840, Commentary Section 271, discussing the Executive):

The other qualifications respect citizenship and inhabitancy. It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people. But an exception was, from a deep sense of gratitude, made in favor of those distinguished men, who, though not natives, had, with such exalted patriotism, and such personal sacrifices, united their lives and fortunes with ours during the Revolution. But even a native citizen might, from long absence, and voluntary residence abroad, becom alienated from, or indifferent to his country; and, therefore, a residence for fourteen years within the United States is made indispensable, as a qualfication to the office."

So, I think you are incorrect that recognizing the extraordinary value of those non-native (i.e., non-natural born) patriots of the Revolution applies to "future generations". The Founders were clear to address their concern that non-native born Americans, with this one-time exception, were not to be "intrusted" with the Office of the Executive.

88 posted on 09/06/2012 4:17:10 PM PDT by glennaro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: New Jersey Realist
This is SO EASY! There are natural citizens and naturalized citizens. END OF STORY.

It is not that some people stupid, it is that they know so many things that are just not so.<Ronald Reagan paraphrased>

97 posted on 09/07/2012 12:21:09 AM PDT by itsahoot (Write in Palin in 2012, That is 1 vote for Palin, 0 votes for Romney and Zer0 votes for Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: New Jersey Realist
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.

So the citizenship of the parents is obviously the overriding factor as that negates the fact that the child was born oversees. It's apparent that the citizenship of the parents is a prerequisite at all times whether born on American soil or not.

136 posted on 09/08/2012 11:53:23 AM PDT by Crucial (Tolerance at the expense of equal treatment is the path to tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson