Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2
Tell that to the Framers.
That preposterous hypothetical is exactly what they were protecting this nation from when they made that special requirement.
They had just finished fighting with the British. The LAST thing they wanted was for British citizens to be able to have a child on US soil and have that child RUN the country, particularly the military, some day.
These men wanted nothing but 100% allegiance to the United States AT BIRTH. Pretty smart, weren’t they. This qualification is determined AT BIRTH and nothing matters after that. Natural ‘BORN’. Not natural ‘when you’re running for office’.
That is what natural born is. It’s about ALLEGIANCE upon birth. You either have it or you don’t. When you are BORN to a US citizen and a UK citizen, you are not a natural BORN citizen of the United States. You are a citizen.
Yes, there is a difference. Any old citizen can be a Senator or Representative but it takes a special kind of citizen to be President. That would be one born with 100% allegiance to the United States of America.
‘First class Americans’ and ‘second class Americans’ are your words. If I marry a foreigner, and have children, I cannot expect my children to be eligible for the Presidency (as I understand the Founders’ intention.) Now, if I want my children to have a chance at becoming the President, then, I had better marry a US citizen, or, effect a change in the Constitution by way of an Amendment.
Your FReeper name troubles me. Why the satanic numbers?
Infants and children do not have allegiances. They have citizenship rights if they are born on US oil. They are a citizen if they are born in the US.
I don’t see how it could be any clearer.
One should owe allegiance to only one country, IMO
(probably a generational thing on my part)
>>> "OK, so point out where they defined the difference." <<<
Perhaps this comment I found (below) on Leo Donofrio's Natural Born Citizen blog will help. It contains a case reference which may also shed some light on this, as well as a quote from former Chief Justice William Rehnquist:
>>> "Historians need to help here. Remember, Congress was given the authority to regulate naturalization. It was the time of the French Revolution. Napoleon would soon be Emperor of France. It was his Napoleonic Code that would make citizenship by “blood” or “descent” the law of all Europe (except Great Britain, although by 1860, Great Britain would begin to adopt “descent,” and did so fully by 1948)
In the U.S., Africans were slaves, persons held as property. Africans were American-born, but NOT citizens.
In 1866, the Civil Rights Act made new freemen “citizens,” not by “naturalization,” because they were not “foreigners,” but by appeal to the “natural-born” clause in Article II as the qualification to be President of the United States. It was the discussion of citizenship in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785, at 790 (1866) that confirmed the logic of this decision: “If born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then a citizen.”
Justice Rehnquist (before he became Chief Justice) pointed out that there were 11 instances in the Constitution — “a document noted for its brevity” — that address the “citizen-alien” distinction.
Clearly, this matter was vitally important to the Framers, and to every Court and Congress since. It will be important in this case, too." <<<
I would be STUNNED if the birth certificate in your safety deposit bank was the original document signed by the doctor — that’s going to permanently be in the possession of the clerk’s office in the town/county/state where you were born.
I believe he produced the birth certificate that the state would give any Hawaiian-born person who requested a copy of theirs.
A natural ‘born’ citizen. This is determined at BIRTH, hence the term ‘natural born’. Children inherit their parents allegiance(s) by birth. They don’t need to make a decision. It is decided for them.
Again, one of the requirements is being a natural BORN citizen. Allegiance matters not when you are running for President. It matters at birth and this is determined by the parents.
My children are Americans by way of me and my husband. They don’t get a say in the matter. Sure, they can denounce their allegiance if they some day desire but that will never take away the fact that they were Americans at birth via me and their dad.
The copy oin the net was an admitted forgery ... the two guys were exposed and had to admit it. That was the copy posted at Obama’s website, and the same document’ upon which Fcatcheck based their assertions. Factcheck even tried to fold their color coy and pretend it was a copy from Hawai’i.
This is a great comment, except for the part where it’s utterly wrong and ignores the common law interpretation of “natural born citizen” as it existed in 1787.
One good explanation:
http://volokh.com/posts/1204265246.shtml
I agree with every word. Common horse sense ought to tell everyone that Obama is stonewalling for reasons that cannot be good. He's got nothing to gain, and everything to lose by his continued refusal to release his records.
Where there is smoke, there is fire. Obama is hiding something much worse than merely embarrassing details of his life. He's guilty of something.
Thanks, BP2. This is the stuff nightmares are made of / of
which nightmares are made.
Ping.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2142619/posts?page=464#464
Doesn't help at all, in fact it ignores the question. The important matter is how one defines the difference, if difference there be, between citizen at birth and natural born citizen. I understand the difference between a person born a citizen of the U.S. and someone naturalized as a citizen. I do not understand where the distinction between citizen at birth, the term used by U.S. law and Supreme Court decisions, and natural borth citizen is defined. The Constitution doesn't do it. What does?
Are you referring to "The Hero of Chappaquiddick"?
What Obamanation put up on his own website is an admitted forgery. The two who forged it have said so. Stop genuflecting to this fraudulent affirmative action wannabe seeking to extort the job from We The People.
I’ve presented a similar scenario as yours in some of my posts, in an attempt to get people to see the larger implications of what is happening here.
We’ve gone beyond simply compelling Obama to prove his basic qualifications for the office of President, although that is what is at the heart of the matter.
Obama has now stonewalled for so long, that he has created the undeniable impression and suspicion that there is definitely something afoot, and that he is withholding something of terrible import from us.
A person in his position should have been eager and forthright in their efforts to dispel any rumors of their ineligibility, and should have made at least their public records an open book to the public by now. But Mr. Obama has systematically closed off the scrutiny of his past, by blocking access to every public record that he has any control over.
This is a Red Flag of alarm.
The fact that nothing is known about this man, besides the tale that he himself has spun for us, should make every thinking American nervous.
Oh, OK, you’re absolutely right.
Enjoy your tin foil hat.
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.