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

To: Boogieman

Tragically, the disaster that is our current President has set new standards for eligibility, but please note what the language of the Constitution says:

The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, (quote) No person except a natural born citizen [born of two parents who were themselves citizens], 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. (unquote)

Please note that the founders made the distinction between “Natural Born Citizens” and “Citizens”.

If there were not a distinction in their minds, then there would have been to reason to list both “types” in their list of qualifications.


19 posted on 01/08/2016 9:45:22 AM PST by CaptainKip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: CaptainKip

“Please note that the founders made the distinction between “Natural Born Citizens” and “Citizens”.”

True. They distinguished between NB citizens and naturalized citizens. There ARE two types.

“(quote) No person except a natural born citizen [born of two parents who were themselves citizens],”

That is dishonest. There is no “born of two citizen parents” clause in the US Constitution.


22 posted on 01/08/2016 10:00:52 AM PST by Mr Rogers (Can you remember what America was like in 2004?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: CaptainKip

“please note what the language of the Constitution says”

I know what the language of the Constitution says, but what you posted is NOT the language of the Constitution. It has been injected with someone’s commentary (in the brackets) that is not actually in the document itself.

“Please note that the founders made the distinction between “Natural Born Citizens” and “Citizens”.

If there were not a distinction in their minds, then there would have been to reason to list both “types” in their list of qualifications.”

It’s very well known what the historical reason is why that distinction was made: if they hadn’t, then George Washington, nor any of the other founders, would have been eligible for the Presidency, since the United States did not exist at the time of their births, therefore they could not have been “natural born citizens” of that country. They were British subjects from birth, not natural born citizens of the United States. Thus an exception was allowed to make citizens of the colonies at the time they adopted the constitution eligible, even though they were not “natural born”.


35 posted on 01/08/2016 12:02:45 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | 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