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

To: iowamark

You know, after 5 years of discussion of this issue on FR, it is astonishing the number of people who continue to post, “natural born citizenship requires two citizen parents born on US soil” as if it is specifically so stated in the Constitution.

Three questions or comments for them:

1. Do we really want the Courts to arrogate themselves the power to override an election? Aren’t they overly powerful already? Which clause of the Constitution gives the Supremes the power to depose an elected President?

2. If BO were declared ineligible tomorrow by the Supremes, and he stepped down (questionable), he would be replaced, presumably, by Mr. Biden. Is this supposed to be some huge improvement?

3. There is no provision in the Constitution for a mechanism by which a candidate certifies his eligibility. It seems obvious to me that this is because the Founders left such certification up to the Electoral College, which was intended to actually elect the President. As we all know, it almost instantly lost any such actual role, and became a rubber stamp for individual voters, with minor exceptions such as SC pre-war.

So by default the job of ensuring only eligible candidates are elected descends to the voters as a group. If they don’t care enough about the Constitution to enforce it by refusing to vote for an ineligible candidate, the Constitution provides no cure.


43 posted on 08/20/2013 3:01:09 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan

In your #3, you show your lack of understanding of the Constitution.

The requirement for the President-elect and the Vice President-elect to qualify to serve in their elective offices is in Amendment XX, Section 3. Note that the burden to qualify is on those two people, not on the USSC.

The burden for declaring that one or both of those people did or did not qualify themselves is, presumably, on the U. S. Congress.

BTW, your #2 is a political point, not a legal or Constitutional point.

And, your #1 shows you think that making an argument that explains the definition of NBC based on historical documents is one that does not base any of the argument on the Constitution. Wrong. The Constitution makes it clear the requirement is that the person must be a Natural Born Citizen. At that point, it must be determined what that phrase meant at the time it was written. Thus, it is necessary to use historical documents to learn what the phrase meant to those who wrote and agreed to the Constitution. Do you really not understand that?


44 posted on 08/20/2013 3:31:38 AM PDT by savedbygrace (But God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | 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