Posted on 09/03/2013 10:18:04 AM PDT by Lakeshark
Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution provides, in pertinent part:
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.
**snip**
This political season, the eligibilities of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz are the subject of debate.
As much as we want certainty, the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution, in the writings or history of those who framed the Constitution, or in a demonstrable common and clear understanding in the former British colonies at the time the Constitution was drafted. Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled on the issue, it probably never will.
The modifier “natural born” is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and its precise origins are unclear, although it is assumed to be derived in some manner from the British common and statutory law governing “natural born Subjects.” **snip**
want to go on record again objecting to the term “birther.” If the term were confined to conspiracy theorists, that would be one thing. But it has become a tool to shut down even legitimate debate.
The term was used as a pejorative as part of a deliberate Obama campaign strategy to shut down debate on his issues **snip**
5. The Framers never expressed what “natural born Citizen” meant **snip**
6. “natural born Citizen” usage at the time of drafting the Constitution is uncertain **snip**
7. British common and statutory law doesn’t solve the problem **snip**
8. There Is No Requirement That Both Parents Be Citizens
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
From his conclusion: This is a very confusing area as to which scholars acting in good faith disagree, although there is a clear weight of authority. But those disagreements, in a sense, are the solution.
A reasonable reading of the plain text of the Constitution supports Rubio, Jindal and Cruz being “natural born Citizen[s]” because they were citizens by birth. There is no clear, demonstrable intent otherwise from the Framers or clear, commonly understood use of the term to the contrary at the time of drafting the Constitution. The British term “natural born Subject” as well as concepts of “natural law” were not clearly relied upon by the Framers, and are in themselves not clearly contradictory to this plain reading of the text.
The burden should be on those challenging otherwise eligible candidates to demonstrate through clear and convincing historical evidence and legal argument why such persons should be disqualified. That has not happened so far, and if two hundred years of scholarship is any indication, it never will happen.
The ultimate arbiter on the issue likely is to be voters, not Supreme Court Justices.
How can people who support the Kenyan have the balls to argue anyone elses NBC status?
So what should I call the useful idiots who insist that Ted Cruz can't be President?
If you need to argue or comment please read the article, it is filled with much more information than I can set here, and is very good.
Yes, it concludes Cruz is eligible, but read it, particularly if you are an eligibility geek.
Have at it.
“The modifier “natural born” is not used anywhere else in the Constitution...”
Which would indicate it has a very special and significant meaning.....
The currant occupant of the White House is under an exceedingly dark cloud when it comes to birth and origins. His minions ought to know better than to make a stink over the subject.
This constitutional scholar/attorney with impeccable credentials explains in 6 minutes what a true natural born Citizen is that the framers of the presidential clause intended to hold the office of the presidency. Listen very good and let it soak in.
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ
I do understand what you're saying for a few of them....:-)
*****************************
A reasonable question, but we are not dealing with reasonable people.
Exactly ... are there not decisions on record that say EVERY word in the Constitution has meaning and those words are not to be dismissed lightly?
AS the article explains, you won’t find it defined ANYWHERE, only barely hinted at.
Read the article before you say such things.
/johnny
Spamming before you even read it. Shame on you.
And after all that, can we PLEASE stop posting page after page after page on this subject?
I don’t think anyone is changing anyone’s mind.
At this point it is just sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Incorrect, but lots of words are cool.
A great article for your perusal. SOC, you need not comment if you so desire....:-)
I intend to sue the moron for the carpal tunnel injury he just gave me.
Liberty amendment Idea.
To be eligible for president one must have spent 16 years out of their first 20 years of life within the borders of the United States.
The “Formative Years” Amendment.
Because if you grew up in the United States you are more likely to have allegiance to the country.
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.