I posted Thomas Jefferson's words where he laid it out: that all men are created equal; that we have the inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that we have the right to form civil structures from the consent of the governed; and to throw off these structures if they become obstacles to the preceding.
But you obviously rejected it.
Be ar in mind that Jefferson wrote this 11 years before the Constitution was drafted. Any relevance to natural born citizenry comes from the right of the people to form their own governments, extended to mean the People are free to decide for themselves whom they want as fellow citizens; and to throw off their government if they no longer consent to its behavior.
Given that some argue that NBC is settled, others argue that the meaning is still in flux, and still others argue that the Supreme Court should unequivocally settle this one and for all, consent of the governed has not been established.
The Top Three Google Search Links
What is the Law of Nature’s God?
The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God: The True Foundation of American Law
-PJ
Because nowhere in there is a definition of natural-born citizen.
Given that some argue that NBC is settled, others argue that the meaning is still in flux, and still others argue that the Supreme Court should unequivocally settle this one and for all, consent of the governed has not been established.
That's ridiculous.
Because nowhere in there is a definition of natural-born citizen.
Given that some argue that NBC is settled, others argue that the meaning is still in flux, and still others argue that the Supreme Court should unequivocally settle this one and for all, consent of the governed has not been established.
That's ridiculous.
I believe that the Constitution is clear insofar as it states that a President must be a "natural born citizen" and that he is to be chosen by a majority of Electors. It is all very simple when we just follow the Constitution and allow the Electors to perform their Constitutional function.
The difficulty arises when some people decide that they want to interfere with the Electors. In 2008 and 2012 (and in other times in our history), people who did not like the outcome of the election concocted elaborate new definitions in an effort to force Electors to choose the candidate that they favored. That strategy has never worked and the Electors once again voted for the candidate that they had been pledged to support.
That particular candidate (Obama) cannot run again and so the elaborate definitions will drift away like smoke in the wind. However, if the next winner is a person who was not born in the United States or had less than two parents who were citizens of the U.S. at the time of his/her birth, we can expect that there will be some people who design new elaborate definitions in an effort to interfere with the Electors. That effort too will fail and once again the new elaborate definitions will drift away like smoke in the wind. No real harm is ever done and lots o books and tapes get written and sold so it is all good for the economy.
Just stick with the Constitution. It requires only that a candidate be a natural born citizen. The Founders told the Electors as much as the Founders wanted to tell the Electors and that should be enough for all of us. We have been holding these elections for over 200 years and I think that the system works just fine even though the people often elect someone other than the candidate that I prefer. They will not be getting many more chances to thwart me, though. ;-)