Posted on 05/25/2014 6:04:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Partisanship plays a major role in how Americans decide who should be eligible for the Presidency, and the concept of what being “natural born” means also plays a role. The U.S. Constitution, in Article II, states that only “natural born” citizens are eligible to serve (it also sets an age limit and grandfathered in anyone who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). In the latest Economist/YouGov Poll, saying someone is eligible to serve depends on who you are.
Nearly everyone agrees that someone born in the United States with two citizen parents is a natural born American, and nearly everyone agrees that someone born outside the United States to NON-citizen parents is not. About three in four – Republicans, Independents and Democrats – believe having only one citizen parent and being born in the United States qualifies you as natural born.
If you are born outside the United States, most Americans say you need to have two American-citizen parents. That would make John McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, natural born, as his U.S. citizen U.S. military parents were stationed in the Panama Canal Zone when he was born. But more than half say that if you are born outside the United States, and only one parent is a citizen, you are not a natural born American,
That means more than half of Republicans (53%) would disqualify Texas Senator Ted Cruz from the Presidency on principle. Cruz was born in Canada to a mother who was an American citizen, while his father was not. But fewer than one in four Republicans think Cruz was born outside the country; only 10% know his mother was a citizen and his father was not.
Of course, some of those Republicans may be answering the question by making a statement about President Barack Obama, and not Ted Cruz. Nearly half of Republicans say they believe the President was born outside the United States, not in Hawaii, and most of those say his mother was a citizen and his father not.
Consequently, most Republicans say Cruz is legally eligible to be President, while President Obama is not.
Tea Party Republicans are even more sure Cruz is eligible (68% think that), but most of them don’t know he was born outside the United States. Tea Party Republican say the President was born outside the United States, and less than a third think he is legally eligible to serve as President.
There are large party differences for one option. Is someone a natural born American who was born in the United States, but to two immigrant parents? Democrats say they are, while Republicans disagree. Parties have nominated children of immigrants for the Presidency (Michael Dukakis in 1988), but no child of two immigrants has been elected President since Andrew Jackson in 1828 (and he was born in the Carolinas before the adoption of the Constitution, and therefore grandfathered in to presidential eligibility).
Florida Senator Marco Rubio was born in the United States, but his parents, immigrants from Cuba, were not yet citizens when he was born. Half of Republicans say that would disqualify someone from being “natural born,” as the Constitution requires to run for President.
Because the Founders used “every day” terms so that the people could understand the Constitution.
So, obviously it had a precise meaning that was well understood at that time. I don’t believe the definition has been settled to modern understanding, however it does seem that our betters are trying to make laws to define it now.
When I read those attempts to amend Art. 2, and/or make laws to end run it, it did seem to me that the Senators and Reps were doing a LOT of massaging, and that it seemed settled that the understanding was there that a person must be born in the US to be a natural born.
I got hollered at here for simply pointing that out, but it is a fact and so why hide our eyes from it? I don’t try to argue the point because it seems to make everyone so itchy, but it is something that should be settled.
Again I will say that the UNDERSTANDING of what the word meant to our Founders is what is the important thing, and that probably won’t be found in a court case or law book. It will probably be found in period writings. It sure can’t have simply been legend since the Constitution was written. How you can know that is by realizing that there has been such a effort to remove that clause, and ask yourself who benefits once that protection is gone?
it’s very simple.
a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... as there are no alternatives at birth.
cruz is as eligible as 0bama. just like rubio.
Over the last few years, we have seen that elections don’t really matter. Judges keep overturning voter-approved laws and even inventing new laws that have never before existed (e.g. gay “marriage”). I seem to recall that a few years ago, a Republican won the governor’s race in Washington, which was overturned by repeated vote counting which turned up a few “new” votes each round until the Democrat finally won. Not to mention that election fraud is blatant and the left does not even try to hide the fact that it will not tolerate any efforts (like voter ID) to make election fraud more difficult.
In brief, the opinion of the people has not mattered in a long time.
I won’t argue over the definition other than to say neither Obama or Ted Cruz are natural born citizens.
I am. Do I get a prize?
That's not saying much --
Gee, I don’t recall this topic ever being discussed before on FR. /s
We have three choices. 1. Revolution (my fav) 2. Elections 3. Submission
Probably true.
Next time you checkout at Walmart ask the cashier who won the Civil War. There you will find your answer grasshopper.
Not me, I was a C-section.
Paine is exactly right. The true intent of the founders is crystal clear. For some reason, every since this country was founded, there have been people trying to twist the founders words. Another good one is “shall not be infringed”...... wonder how many explanations we will come up with for that one before it’s all said and done? History will look back on us and shake it’s collective head.... wondering how in the world we could’ve thrown away such a wonderful gift given by the founders.
Have you checked under your bed ?
The only things being born here of two citizen parents should give you the right to is residency and a chance to take a citizenship test at the age of maturity. Citizenship is too precious to just be given away. It should be earned and maintained.
This very well illustrates the hypocrisy of Democrats as they deem Obama a Natural Born Citizen no matter what his lineage or place of birth, but impose of much stricter standard on Cruz, Rubio and Jindal when their names are mentioned as presidential contenders.
Well, of course, they’re lying pieces of crap about Obama, but correct on the others.
I got sort of yelled out for bringing this stuff up. I was attempting to point out that our betters USED to all seem to think one had to be born in the US, then when they really got down to trying for an amendment, they little by little began to blur that bit, by using terms like, “maybe it meant”.
There are over a DOZEN of these since the 70’s. Why are they trying so hard? Hummm?
According to them it’s ... for the children. I’m not kidding.
Indians born in the USA were not citizens until the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act. (With some exceptions)
http://thomaslegion.net/indian_citizenship_act_of_1924.html
My interest is in the beliefs of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States. I have a belief that the practices of certain things of my native country England were taken into account. There was a horror and revulsion on the methods of execution of criminals in England. "No cruel and unusual punishment" I believe was the edict on sentencing criminals.
Kings of England as follows.
George Ist. Born Hanover. Germany.
George 11. Born Hanover. Germany.
George 111. Born England.
All three men had wives born in Germany, I believe.
I have observed the attitude of the now President of the United States. I would mention that his father was a British Subject of East Africa, later of the Republic of Kenya. His step father was a subject of Indonesia.
The Framers of the Constitution were not amenable to outside influences on any future President. They had good reason.
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.