Skip to comments.Bret explains "natural born citizen" requirements for president and vice president
Posted on 05/01/2012 9:32:22 AM PDT by GregNH
Here's the deal...
Many legal analysts and scholars agree with this take-- and until the Supreme Court weighs in.. this is how the law is interpreted:
The Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born citizen," but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father's nationality.
The brouhaha over President Obama's birth certificate -- has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a "natural born citizen," but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“Your statement is what is idiotic. One is a citizen through natural law, not ‘of’ natural law.”
One is many things through natural law, but not a citizen. Like I said, citizenship requires something to be a citizen of, and the custom and positive law to create that something does not exist by nature.
Besides, the way you phrased yourself, apparently as a result of misreading my post, you said one can be a citizen “of” natural law. Those were your words, not mine.
“And once again you deny natural law when, and as, you choose”
Who says it’s my choice. You assume, but I don’t see why I couldn’t accuse you of the same dishonesty, in the absence of verifiable knowledge. It seems pretty convenient, to me, for this suddenly to become such an issue for people otherwise looking for anything to use against a president they hate. Not that that’s how you’re using it, but, again, I could just as easily accuse you of it as you accuse me.
How do you know, by the way, that affirming the right to bear arms is to my liking? How do you know I care about guns, particularly, aside from that I’m posting on a conservative site. How do you know I wouldn’t really, really love something to use against Obama that would demand his removal from office? I’d love to kick him out. My interests flow in the opposite direction from my principles in this case.
I deny natural law when it doesn’t apply, as to being a citizen of a particular modern organized state under a particular constitution. You admit that natural law doesn’t apply to everything, hence the need for positive law. I agree. One of the things positive law provides us with is something to be a citizen of.
“To believe what you say then you have to believe...
My ability to keep and bear arms isn’t of nature, but of organized human society, as in modern times governed on a national level by constitutions and positive laws.”
Failed analogy, different matters. I don’t need a government to have the right to bear arms. It would be convenient to have someone to proect it, but it’s not necessary. The right remains, even if all the guns in the world were stripped of their rightful owners.
Being a citizen of a government, contrariwise, demands that there be a government to be a citizen of. It’s not inconvenient to be a citizen by nature alone: it’s impossible.
“You don’t believe that, as you’ve indicated...
@Yes, like I said, you have a natural right to bear arms.”
True, I don’t believe that. I do believe, though, that you do not have the natural right to be a citizen of the U.S. You have a right only because of positive law. It is a positive right more firmly grounded than the “right” to collective bargaining. But it depends on there being a U.S. Constitution nonetheless.
Not only Arthur, but James Buchanan, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover and possibly Andrew Johnson all were born to at least one non-citizen parent.
That isnt possible.
Yet you continue to argue that it is possible! Amazing!
It can, and does, apply to people upon being born.
But...but...you just said that isn't possible!
And since they're citizens, since they're already born, then how can a law dealing with aliens and nationality govern them as they're not, and never were, aliens and their nationality is already established as being legal citizens?
I would agree that it's "applicable upon" them when they're born, but I can't agree that it "applies to" them either before, or after, they're born.
It will always "apply to" the alien parents.
If you don't want to your kid to gain automatic U.S. citizenship while you are legally in this nation then get out before the delivery date.
“You probably can’t conceive that slavery predated civilization either as there were no laws against it since ‘civilization’ hadn’t been established to make it morally wrong or criminal.”
I said I was done, but since this is a somewhat fresh issue, let me school you.
Slavery may have existed in pre-civilized times, though not in the way we mean it, not for extended periods, and not in a systematic manner. Hunter-gatherer societies are more likely to kill or leave stranded men they’ve conquered, as they have no use for slaves. Seriously, how do you keep someone in lower status if there is no division of labor—aside from those established along gender and age lines? You don’t. They run away.
Same with pastoral people. They possibly have some division of labor, though largely it is the same as with hunter-gatherers, i.e. along gender and age lines. They can’t prevent escape, either.
Slavery doesn’t come into its own before the herders adopt it. They can use slaves, and they can hunt slaves. They can settle slaves along with the rest of the farmers they’ve subdued, and draw tribute from them. No previous group can manage that.
“I gave you a list of FACTS demonostrating that Obama acts like a foreigner”
They are facts, but I don’t think it demonstrates that he wasn’t born a citizen. I could see a foreigner acting that way, or a naturalized citizen, or a natural born citizen. The point has not been demonstrated, despite your insistence.
“re: the term magical. I pointed out how stupid a usage it was, and you said it got to me. Ive never met a conservative who argued that way. Only liberals.”
For the record, I maintain it got to you because it was accurate.
“Your reply is all the answer I need to know that I’m right and you know it.”
No, honestly I have no idea what you mean. Your rain and speeding metaphors haven’t clarified it for me.
Thanks, Smokey. I find that simply posting that, saves me hundreds of words of explanation and argument :-)
According to Wikipedia, his father emigrated from Ireland in 1783. That makes his father a citizen at the time of ratification in 1789. I don't see any information about his mother, other than that she is of Irish descent.
I was teasing you. I often have no point to make.
“It’s applicable on the child. It applies to the alien parents.”
I still don’t understand the difference. I also don’t understand, way back when this all started, you insisted on saying the law only applies to aliens when clearly it is “applicable upon” citizen children. Couldn’t you have mentioned it was applicable upon citizens from the start and saved us a lot of trouble?
“Just like the law in question is about the parents!”
It’s about the parents insofar as it’s about their children. It’s about the children citizens, as you’ve admitted it establishes their citizenship status and is “applicable upon” them.
“In other words...if the alien parent doesn’t want the child to have U.S citizenship then don’t let it be born here.”
Also, if the child is born here it will have citizenship status for as long as it doesn’t renounce it. Which kinda sorta almost maybe...no, wait, definitely means it applies to the children.
“The child has no control over where it’s born. The parent does!”
So what? No natural born citizens have control over where they’re born. That doesn’t mean laws controlling their status don’t apply to them.
“How obtuse can you get?!”
Not as obtuse as thinking that means the law doesn’t apply to them. Your thinking the law applies only to parents because they’re the only ones who can do anything about it before the child is born is the epitome of obtuseness.
Like I said, citizenship requires something to be a citizen of, and the custom and positive law to create that something does not exist by nature.
So, according to you, and going by your emphasis of the Greek Polis and that civilization must predate civilization, then the nomadic Plains Indians weren't citizens of any sort, not even of their own tribes, simply because they didn't live in cities and due to them having no written positive law.
I deny natural law when it doesnt apply, as to being a citizen of a particular modern organized state under a particular constitution.
Yes, you have to set and qualify the parameters for what you will and won't believe.
I dont need a government to have the right to bear arms.
That's because you accept some instances of natural law and deny other instances when they don't support your argument.
Its not inconvenient to be a citizen by nature alone: its impossible.
Despite @your earlier usage you give evidence with that statement that you really don't understand the expression "term of art".
Term of Art
A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning.
Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore holds everywhere.
Obama is the first POTUS in history w a foreign, America-loathing father, and the first POTUS in history to humiliate the USA all over the world w apology tours, kowtowing to our enemies, bowing to foreign leaders, joining w the Mexican president to condemn one of our own United States [if only we’d had an American at that meeting, to stand up for the USA], etc. etc. You cannot cite a single POTUS born of citizen parents who has behaved similarly. Your very inability proves my point. The Framers never intended for the spawn of foreign enemies to assume the highest office of the land. If and when they did, Obama’s exact behavior is the result—to the destruction of the Republic.
As for your stupid ‘magical comments’ - how utterly liberal of you. You’re doing the old liberal ‘heads I win, tales you lose’ routine. If I point out how stupid what you said was, you develop a God-like ability to see into my mind, and pronounce that somehow my ridiculing of your statement means you scored a point. If I don’t point out how stupid your comments were, you get away w spouting nonsense. It’s the kind of lose-lose situation libs live for. You should be ashamed.
“It says...your parents were complete idiots who were ignorant of the law, which is no defense, for not being aware that you were automatically going to be designated a U.S. citizen when you were born”
Why do you assume they didn’t know? Why would they necessarily want to defend against it?
“The Constitution clearly says Natural Born Citizen. All other references are to Citizens. So the original ‘intent’ was for the president to be born of two citizen parents”
No, so far as we can know the president was meant to be a natural born citizen. Anything else is pure supposition, and does not control plain meaning. It could be useful for construing the text when it is unclear, but it’s not here. NBCs are people born citizens. That may have been only the children of two citizen parents at the original framing. By the 14th amendment, there is no doubt that it’s means more.
Thanks for the correction.
I wonder if anybody’s looked at all the VPs, as well.
There is a problem with the statement insofar as it wasn’t the law in 1961. In 1961 replace 2 years with 5 years.
However Bret’s general premise, that all citizens at birth are natural born citizens, is the view of the vast majority of legal scholars. You may not like it, but that’s the way it is, and the way no less than 5 judges have ruled in cases involving Barack Obama, the most recent being Judge Masin in New Jersey who said that the citizen-parent theory had no basis in law.
People are entitled to their own opinion, but not to misrepresent the opinions of others.
Your argument, as far as I can tell, is that a law that begins "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth" does not actually "apply to" those people but rather "is applicable upon" them. That's a rabbit hole I don't care to follow you down. Do let us know how it works out when you explain to the cop that the speed limit doesn't apply to you, it's just applicable upon you.
“Can a law apply to a person who isnt born? How is that possible?”
No one is seeking to apply it to the unborn. It applies upon their birth. What don’t you understand about that?
“Yet you continue to argue that it is possible! Amazing!”
No, I’m not. You’re really confused as to then the law applies. It is not in the womb, no. It controls their status when they’re born. When they are born!
“But...but...you just said that isn’t possible!”
Sigh. It’s like talking to a five year old. What’s impossible is it applying before birth, as you indicate. It can very well apply upon birth, which is not before or after but simultaneous with birth.
“And since they’re citizens, since they’re already born”
I don’t like that “already,” as it will lead you down dark roads. They are citizens when they’re born. Not before, not after. They are not “already” citizens when they’re born. They become citizens as they’re born. They come together.
“how can a law dealing with aliens and nationality govern them”
Because one of their parents is an alien, and conveying U.S. citizenship is giving them a nationality.
“as they’re not, and never were, aliens and their nationality is already established as being legal citizens?”
Their nationality is established, as you agree, by the law (and this you apparently won’t admit) when they are born. There is no “already.” They’re not citizens by the time the law gets to them, nor does the law affect them before they are born. It hits them as they are born, upon their birth, simultaneously with them entering the world.
“I would agree that it’s ‘applicable upon’ them when they’re born”
I don’t know what that means, if it doesn’t mean it applies to them.
“I can’t agree that it ‘applies to’ them either before, or after, they’re born”
Does it have to be “before” or “after” with you? Can you not recognize that I’m saying it happens with birth, not before nor after? Just like a citizen born to citizen parents achieves his status (via Nature’s God, or whatever you say) when he’s born. Not before, not after, but upon birth.
“If you don’t want to your kid to gain automatic U.S. citizenship while you are legally in this nation then get out before the delivery date.”
Here it is again. What’s up with your castigation of fictitious parents who accidentally birth U.S. citizens? how do you know they don’t want their kids to be citizens? Why do you imagine they’d defend against it? Isn’t it a birther article of faith that foreigners are intentionally sneaking in to birth anchor babies so as to run them for president?
I also dont understand, way back when this all started, you insisted on saying the law only applies to aliens when clearly it is applicable upon citizen children.
Because it does only apply to aliens. Their children never were aliens, and that being from the moment of their birth!
Couldnt you have mentioned it was applicable upon citizens from the start and saved us a lot of trouble?
You should have been smart enough to have figured that out. Instead you go on and on and on and...well, you get the picture.
Its about the parents insofar as its about their children.
I see you're qualifying your statements again.
Its about the children citizens...
No, it's about a choice the child's alien parent/s have and the law is informing them of the consequences of their actions. Have the child in the US or have it elsewhere...plain and simple.
...it establishes their citizenship status and is applicable upon them.
If the child's parents don't know what the law is and the child is born in the US, then their child will be, automatically, designated a US citizen, thus making the law "applicable upon" the child, not the parent. The parent/s have to go through a different set of hurdles to become U.S citizens and they also will never be natural born citizens despite becoming citizens as they too are naturalized.
And that's for legal aliens, like students, in case you've missed that tidbit along the way.
No natural born citizens have control over where theyre born.
Well if they weren't born in the nation of their citizen parents they wouldn't even be natural born citizens, would they?
Your thinking the law applies only to parents because theyre the only ones who can do anything about it before the child is born is the epitome of obtuseness.
So who does have control over where the child is born? The when is usually pretty easy to figure out within a month or two.
Gee...ya don’t say!
Why would they necessarily want to defend against it?
Who said they would want to defend against it?
And as long as we're playing "the supposing game"....suppose a legal alien student came over here with the sole intention of having a baby as a means of gaining citizenship for themselves through the child. The law works to their benefit, doesn't it?
no. I am not feeling well tonight but I wanted to try to give you a boost. I would have written more, but the fever, you know........
Because, as I’ve said, there is no U.S., for instance, by nature. There is no organized human society capable of having citizens whatsoever by nature. Those have to come into being before people can be citizens of them.
“So, according to you, and going by your emphasis of the Greek Polis and that civilization must predate civilization”
Civilization must predate citizenship, you mean?
“Then the nomadic Plains Indians weren’t citizens of any sort, not even of their own tribes, simply because they didn’t live in cities and due to them having no written positive law.
Yes, exactly. Keeping clear that by plains indians you mean hunter-gatherers with perhaps some minimal level of agriculture. Which is not to imply there was no civilization developed enough for there to be citizens in the new world. Just not amongst the indians you specify. Their tribes had members, and there was hierarchy. But there was no government and no citizenship except in a metaphorical sense.
“Yes, you have to set and qualify the parameters for what you will and won’t believe.”
Is this sarcastic? I can’t tell.
“That’s because you accept some instances of natural law and deny other instances when they don’t support your argument.”
Here, again, I have to ask why you think I arbitrarily chose to support guns and not natural citizenship rights? Because I’m a gun nut and love Obama, or what? Could it possibly be that I have actual reasons for preferring one to the other? For instance, could it be as simple as that the governments of which you are a citizen don’t exist by nature and have to form when societies get around to it? Or is it that anyone who disagrees with you must be doing it dishonestly?
“Despite @your earlier usage you give evidence with that statement that you really don’t understand the expression ‘term of art’”
This doesn’t speak to the quote you place it under. And yes, I do.
“Term of Art
A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning.”
A particular meaning in a particular context, yes. Duh. What bearing does this have on what I said? Is “naturalized” a term of art which particularly means “made natural” in the context of citizenship, or are native citizens who birthers argue are “naturalized at birth” not eligible to be president? I believe you have to choose one or the other. There can be no effective difference between “natural born” and “made natural at birth.”
“Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore holds everywhere.”
Everywhere and in every time, I assume. We didn’t have different natural rights before England came to the new world, did we? Did we have the right to be U.S. citizens at birth if we were born in what would be Jamestown, for instance, before 1607? (I set it then to avoid controversy over Constitution citizenship vs. Articles citizenship vs. Continental Congress citizenship vs. state citizenship, etc.) No. No one can be a U.S. citizen by nature, because the U.S. has to exist for one to be a citizen of it.
“WRONG! rxsid has a reply at @115 that completely disproves your lie.”
Wrong you. He disproved no such thing.
“You don’t seem to understand a lot of things even when it’s explained to you.”
But not in this case, as explanations aren’t forthcoming. Except, that is, via bad metaphors.
“Because it does only apply to aliens”
Oh, yes, it “is applicable upon” citizens. Also, mouglidoodah, and fleeblepoo.
“Their children never were aliens”
“and that being from the moment of their birth!”
“You should have been smart enough to have figured that out”
No I shouldn’t, since it’s both untrue and makes no sense. But even if it did, it’s subtle enough a point to deserve elucidation before several points and many minutes, maybe hours, into the argument. Methinks you probably made it up as you went along, which is why it popped up so late in the game.
“I see you’re qualifying your statements again.”
Yes, when I post more than once I don’t merely cut and paste words. I qualified, but didn’t change the meaning fundamentally. It does apply to the parents, since they are interested in the status of their children. It applies more to the children, since they are the ones it is about.
“No, it’s about a choice the child’s alien parent/s have and the law is informing them of the consequences of their actions”
No, no, a thousand times no. It is about the child’s status, which may or may not affect the choices of the parents. Though it does, as you say, inform them of the consequences of where and how they birth their babies. Consequences which redound directly upon the children. It applies to the parents, yes, in their capacity as parents. It applies to the children fundamentally, since it is about them as persons: what citizenship status they will carry with them.
“If the child’s parents don’t know what the law is and the child is born in the US, then their child will be, automatically, designated a US citizen”
Yes, exactly. That’s why it applies to them.
“The parent/s have to go through a different set of hurdles to become U.S citizens and they also will never be natural born citizens despite becoming citizens as they too are naturalized.”
No, not “also,” but aside from that so what?
“And that’s for legal aliens, like students, in case you’ve missed that tidbit along the way.”
No, I haven’t. The 14th amendment controls the children of illegal aliens who are subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law.
“Well if they weren’t born in the nation of their citizen parents they wouldn’t even be natural born citizens, would they?”
That’s beside the point. Would children according to this law qualify if born outside the U.S.? I forget. Either way, where they are born is not up to them and it does apply to them.
“So who does have control over where the child is born?”
The parents, but that’s not the issue. The law does not apply only to people who can choose where the child is born.
“Why don’t you assume they did know?”
Because I have no reason to. Also because I don’t care to, as it’s not germane to the subject at hand.
“Who said they would want to defend against it?”
You were the one I quoted talking about ignorance of the law being no defence. I ask, again, why posit them defending against their child being born a U.S. citizen? And what does this have to do with whether the law applies to the children?
“And as long as we’re playing ‘the supposing game’....suppose a legal alien student came over here with the sole intention of having a baby as a means of gaining citizenship for themselves through the child. The law works to their benefit, doesn’t it?”
We haven’t been playing this game, or at least I haven’t. I’m not interested. I want to know, at long last, the difference between a law being “applicable upon” and a law “applying to” someone. I want to know why a law establishing the birthright citizenship of someone does not apply to that person.
Just because a decision was handed down, and that decision relied upon faulty rulings IMO (see footnote 2), it doesn't mean that it's a proper or just decision.
Or do you agree with every decision that has ever been handed down?
And one has to read the rebuttal to understand how bad the decision really was...starting at page 4 to page 6...
@Purpura-Moran Exceptions to Initial Decision 4-10-12
Just in time for the election.
“Or do you agree with every decision that has ever been handed down?”
You can always pull that old argument. The courts are not infallible, and actually are extremely and constantly fallible. But I wonder, do you ask yourself if you trust implicitly every decision handed down when you personally agree with the outcome? Were you so hard on Lopez, Citizens United, or the DC gun case? Or was it all, “Three chears for SCOTUS!”
“Or do you agree with every decision that has ever been handed down?”
You can always pull that old argument. The courts are not infallible, and actually are extremely and constantly fallible. But I wonder, do you ask yourself if you trust implicitly every decision handed down when you personally agree with the outcome? Were you so hard on Lopez, Citizens United, or the DC gun case? Or was it all, “Three cheers for SCOTUS!”
Sorry Mr. Baier - FAIL. Complete and total FAIL."
Thanks for putting up this info.
Civilization must predate citizenship, you mean?
Oh, WOW! You really scored some points there!
Yes, exactly. Keeping clear that by plains indians you mean hunter-gatherers with perhaps some minimal level of agriculture.
I mean Plains Indians as in the Sioux, Cheyenne, Crow, Blackfeet, Comanche, Pawnee and others, not some creation of your mind. Funny then that many such tribes are referred to as sovereign Indian nations throughout our history. Why, those nations even signed treaties with the government!
But there was no government and no citizenship except in a metaphorical sense.
You just can't accept that there were tribal elders and councils, can you? And you can hardly be a member of a sovereign nation unless you were first considered a citizen of that nation.
Why do you belittle the American Indian so?
And, once again, the rest of your reply isn't even worth responding to.
Unfortunately, as much as I love reading your well-written jousts FW, I believe you are wasting your time here, as Tublecane has, from what I've read of their posts on previous threads, no problem with the concept of an "anchor baby" president either.
The idea of undivided loyalty to the US as an eligibility requirement escapes them for some reason. . .
What controls "plain meaning" is when other contemporaries plainly used the same words to mean the same things.
I posted the words of Thomas Paine, a Founder, if not a Framer. He wrote in The Rights Of Man about the origins of nations, and a comparison of the United States, France, and England, in terms of the authority of those governments vs. the rights of its citizens.
He wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.
If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
But I wonder, do you ask yourself if you trust implicitly every decision handed down when you personally agree with the outcome?
What a weighted, and qualified, query.
I trust little "implicitly". I'm too familiar with the foibles, faults and failures of mankind to do that.
Were you so hard on Lopez, Citizens United, or the DC gun case?
When I disagreed I said so. There are some aspects that I don't agree with in that they were still too restrictive on the rights of citizens.
So even though they were "good" wins, if you will, they still IMO left much to be desired, the DC gun case in particular. You couldn't pay me to live in DC!
Define NBC status "exhaustively"? They gave the definition, mentioning other classes whose "citizenship" status is in doubt. What part of judicial restraint don't you understand?
"I defy you to quote them saying native borns are not natural born."
That is one of the worst bs strawman arguments I've ever seen at FR, and that includes ones by "squeeky". The Court in Minor gave a definition of what IS a NBC. All others, by (non) definition, are IN DOUBT.
Whether you know it or not, you are arguing what the meaning of "is" is.
Only after-birthers try so hard to sow doubt and confusion.
His father George was born in Mexico...
This is the reason the powers that be made sure Willard was the GOP nominee. One need look no further than this.
For the same reason he wasn't allowed to be seen even holding a copy of the "LFBC" that was "released" on 27 April 2011: deniability.
Find even one instance of "Obama" ever having been asked point-blank whether or not he is constitutionally qualified to hold the office of the presidency. Bet you won't find one.
“as I love reading your well-written jousts FW”
Blush blush. Made my night.
There are some posters on these threads that are clearly liberals. I, perhaps more than some, recognize liberals when I encounter them. As many FReepers know, I used to be a liberal. Not a moderate Dem, but a full-metal gushing-heart far left activist moonbat. [Long story.] When you’ve lived that lifestyle the way I have, it’s not hard to recognize a (formerly) fellow lib. They give themselves away a hundred different ways when they ‘debate’ this type of issue.
I’d liken it to being raised on a particularly smelly pig farm. Eventually you get away from it, but that distinct odor is one you’ll never forget...or confuse. Later in life when you catch a whiff of it you don’t stop and wonder, ‘hey, that’s vaguely familiar; have I ever smelled that smell before?’ No, you KNOW it’s pig farm stench, no ifs, ands or buts about it.
There are conservative anti-birthers. I’ve met several on these threads. Then there are liberal anti-birthers. I’ve met quite a few of those too. Many are now banned. Some remain. It’s always interesting to see what the future holds.
Anyone who thinks being raised by US citizen parents vs non-US citizen parents is the same thing has never been around anyone in the latter category for any extended time. We see it in our own family with my son-in-law whose parents came to the US to fulfill his dad’s lifelong dream of coming to America. In most regards they make better US citizens than many native or natural born.
BUT unlike the original settlers and most immigrants thru the first part of the 20th century, that family is able to return ‘home’ every year. The children were equally steeped in US and the old country’s cultures and languages. They were able to obtain dual-citizenship. One of the US born children has returned to live in the old country. Some very basic things that American kids, born of US citizen parents and steeped in US culture, just KNOW can come as a surprise to our son-in-law. It’s endearing, just not qualifying if he ever wanted to be POTUS.
“The Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born citizen,” but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401.”
I thought interpretation of language in the Constitution was the job of SCOTUS? Federal law, after all, is whatever passes through the Congress and we know they don’t normally bother to read the laws they pass. At least with SCOTUS, which I know has declined to interpret ‘natural born’ at every opportunity, when they DO interpret Constitutional language, they’ve read every piece of the history behind it and explain their reasoning in their Opinions, dissents, etc.
Well that’s one type of immigrant family. Then you’ve got the reconquista type, who believe that southwest USA was stolen from Mexico and needs to be returned by any possible necessary. [The kids are raised believing this—and raised to hate the US in the process.]
Then you have the even more virulent and insidious post-colonialists, who literally believe the US is the biggest source and force of evil in the modern world. Obama is one of these. This explains his truly nasty and hateful attitude toward the US, and his personal jihad against us.
Anybody who thinks the kids of foreign post-colonialists and reconquistas are exactly what the Framers intended via NBC, has just drunk too much Kool-Aid, period. The incidence of this type and level of anti-Americanism among the kids of citizens is much lower, and far, far easier to identify. That’s why we never had to worry about a POTUS trying—and succeeding very well—to outright destroy the US pre-Obama. When the powers that be decided the kid of a virulently anti-American foreign post-colonialist was just peachy, we started down the fast track to national destruction, and that is just a fact.
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.