Posted on 09/19/2011 4:29:58 AM PDT by maggief
How about talking about the realities instead of brushing them aside and claiming I am a Democrat.
Give me the synopsis of Roger V Bellei.
Can’t do it , can you.
The founders certainly were not stupid, were very careful in their wording and certainly intended that the Constitution was to be taken literally. In that regard, if they had intended that mere citizens were also eligible, there was no need to mention “natural born Citizen” nor the phrase “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”.
Their intent is clear, NBC is the standard, except at the start! Take your commas and shove them, it’s not productive to even attempt to continue a reasonable conversation with you! Adios!!
JC
Here us the relevant quote and their definitive statement is the 3rd and 4th sentences (in plain English):
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”
They also say that there is no doubt about that first statement, only about other definitions of citizenship, yet here comes you claiming that I may be a fool even when I provide their exact intent in the ruling!! BTW, I also provided this to you in a private posting which you apparently ignored as you continue your obfuscation of the issue here - in public! Adios again and good riddance!! SHEEESH
JC
Still can’t read , can you.
Let me show you. WHAT IS THE LITERAL TRANSLATION OF THIS SENTENCE
“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The misplaced comma changes the sentence.
So if they were not prone to error as you claim...what does that sentence mean.
Because you are trying to flim flam or you are an idiot:
This sentence:
“As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”
There were NOT deciding about whether there is more than one definition because it was not necessary as to the facts of the case before them.
Why can you not understand this???
They were ONLY deciding as was relevant to THIS case.
Had the facts been one that resolving it was necessary to issue a decision THEN they would have discussed it.
Because it wasn’t important to THIS CASE - they declined to discuss it AND INDICATED SUCH.
NOTICE THAT THEY DIDN’T go through the machinations of discussing the ins and outs of that partiular issue.
I am SERIOUS when I say crap like this makes Conservatives look ridiculous. It is staring you right in the face and you refuse to acknowlege it.
There was no USA when they were being elected? Really?
You do have a knack for creating things I didn’t say, don’t you?? What I DID say was when the rules for eligibility to the presidency were being documented, the early group of folks later to elected president couldn’t have met the natural born citizen requirement because there was NO USA at the time of their birth for them to have been born into, neither were their parents citizens either at that time. NO one alive and of age during the Constitutional Convention could have met that requirement, hence the exception for them was absolutely necessary as a very practical matter. Do I also need to draw you a picture? SHEEESH
JC
What I’m trying to get you to explain to me is, when did they decide to change this rule, or codify it, or whatever? When did they define it the way you seem to understand it? Here is a list of Presidents with one or both parents who were foreign born:
Thomas Jefferson‘s mother was born in England
Andrew Jackson‘s parents were both born in Ireland
James Buchanan had an Irish father
Chester A. Arthur had an Irish father
Woodrow Wilson‘s mother was English
Herbert Hoover had a Canadian-born mother
Obama’s father was born in Kenya
Not all of these people were from those early times.
I don’t doubt that this issue will come up (spearheaded by people who don’t like Rubio). However, if I had to place a bet on it, real money, I would guess that if it made it to the SCOTUS they would find that it was NOT a correct reading of the Constitution.
I’m sorry this became a fight. I simply think this is not a real issue and it pains me to see conservatives get inflamed over this, as it looks a lot like the Truther stuff.
Oh, and yes, I love pictures, if you can draw something nice, go ahead. :)
The founders identified the exception to the NBC requirement in the Constitution to cover those candidates who were born in the colonies BEFORE there was a USA, rendering it impossible for their parents to have been US citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth.
Everyone you listed met the NBC requirement except Arthur (who lied about his father’s citizenship at the time of his birth and hid the documentation) and Obama (who had Pelosi and the DNC fraudulently “certify” that he was eligible which was carefully ignored by Congress and the media). The need for both parents to have been citizens is satisfied when one (or both) noncitizen(s) had already been naturalized, regardless of their original birth place(s). For Rubio, his parents only became naturalized AFTER his birth in the US, so I claim he isn’t eligible to be president or vice president, but would make an excellent senate majority leader!
Concerning Obama (and assuming Obama, Sr actually was his father), he was also a British citizen at birth (Kenya was a Brit colony at the time), and became solely an Indonesian citizen when adopted by Soetero there. (Indonesia did not permit dual citizenships) There is also no evidence that he was later naturalized when returning to Hawaii, and he may have declared himself to be an Indonesian for purposes of one or more student aid grants at Occidental when attending there. There is also mounting evidence that his so-called birth certificate was “photo-shopped” so as to appear valid. It is therefore possible that Obama may be, in fact, an illegal alien!!
No wonder he has tried to hide, destroy or expunge all records of his prior life. All of this will eventually become known when he is no longer of any use to our leftwing, socialist establishment as is already happening!
JC
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.