Posted on 09/17/2016 8:45:00 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
An education watchdogs Constitution Day interviews on Georgetown Universitys campus revealed no shortage of students who said the document is outdated.
Campus Reform asked Georgetown students, who have an average SAT score of 1460 and a high school GPA of 4.01, what they thought of the document George Washington said he would never abandon. The[y] overwhelmingly disagreed with the nations first president and Revolutionary War hero.
Some of the responses by young Hoyas, include:
People definitely take [the Constitution] too seriously, its not 250 years ago.
When it was written, we were considering things that absolutely dont apply today.
I feel like sometimes people use the Constitution as an excuse to not think and to not work towards progress.
I come from North Carolina. There are a lot of people in that area who I think take the Constitution too seriously.
The Constitution itself and a lot of the amendments are probably taken a little bit too seriously.
Sometimes were afraid to think, I dont know, in more utopian ways.
We have to keep updating like we would anything after, you know, like, the dictionary is updated once a week.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
They should be allowed to run the world while they still know everything.
</s>
Entitled idiots like this need the hard dick of knowledge to come skulf**k some sense into them
Not seriously enough.
I can imagine.
First, they'll murder everyone who doesn't agree with them.
People will starve. They'll turn the USA into Venezuela at first.
Infrastructure will decay from neglect.
Then they'll start murdering each other.
The land will look like Pol Pot's Cambodia at the end.
All in the name of their lunatic utopian philosophy of
equality and diversity.
“Thinking means their version of how it is to be. Which will change with the wind.”
“To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.” - Theodore Roosevelt
Yep, these college kids think the constitution was written by old white men, who subjugated women, held blacks as slaves, etc. So because of the circumstances of their times, we need to disregard everything they ever did in their lives, and condemn them, because the founding fathers didn’t have a 21st century politically correct worldview.
Speaking of the founding fathers, ever notice how few say that term anymore? They speak of the “founders” or “framers” of the constitution, but apparently we aren’t supposed to say founding fathers, even though all were actually men.
Is it somehow demeaning to women to talk of the founding fathers???? Even though they were men????
Anyone who lists Georgetown university on a resume should be passed over for consideration.
To do all that, they will need guns.
Campuses today are Marxist indoctrination centers.
Many of the public schools are too.
They have been brainwashing students for at least 20 years to espouse the views expressed.
I knew this country was gone when the simple three word phrase, natural born citizen, was no longer understood by its clear meaning, born here of citizen parents.
Solely a US citizen with no possibilty of being anyting else.
No foreign birth
No foreign parent(s)
No foreign citizenship(s)
No foreign influence on the Presidency, the reason stated by John Jay in his letter to George Washington insisting on natural born citizen, not just citizen or native born citizen.
So mush for common sense
Those responses are further proof that going to college and getting a degree does not mean you are intelligent nor can it make you intelligent.
Why we homeschool. Exactly.
Some are taking Georgetown students too seriously.
They’ll hold their hands out for the shackles.
Liberals always speak in generalizations. Not a single student comment in this article was in any way specific.
America taking Georgetown students too seriously.
Such wisdom from the students at William Blythe Clinton’s alma mater! /sarc
It’s like saying we take bones too seriously. Sure, 250 years ago, they were necessary to give a human a standardized shape and attach muscles to, but now, in the age of cushy sofas, it’s time to back off a little, and adapt, you know?
Natural born citizen meant at the time it was written anyone born to those legally within the United States. That was its meaning under the Common Law that existed at that very time - being born within the realm to become a natural born citizen. This same definition has also been adjudicated multiple times. The letter from John Jay does not define it in the way that you claim and it was in response to some proposing that the Presidency should be eligible for those naturalized for a certain period of time - John Jay wanted it to be only someone who has been a citizen from birth - not later naturalized with a waiting period of sorts as some were proposing.
Heres some information to shed light on what you stated from another thread where all of this was also discussed:
If the Framers did not intend for the phrase they put into the Constitution - Natural Born Citizen - to mean what it meant at the time they wrote it, they would have written out a definition into the Constitution to redefine it. Since they did not, we can only assume it meant what the phrase meant when they wrote it out - the English common law definition - those born within the borders of the realm are naturally born citizens. There are a number of court cases where it is defined in this manner with regard to those born with far looser connections to the United States than Marco Rubio or Chester Arthur. The first case where it seems this was dealt with by a court was Lynch vs. Clarke in New York over a dispute with who could inherit property - there was a law on the books stating that only a U.S. Citizen could inherit property, and the presiding judge (apparently in this court the judge was called a Vice Chancellor) made this declaration: Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. In another case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over the citizenship of a person born who was born to Chinese parents (it was illegal at that time for Chinese immigrants to become U.S. Citizens) it was declared that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, and Justice Field, who wrote the opinion, actually referenced the Lynch v. Clarke decision in the ruling of the Court: After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. This case was In re Look Tin Sing. Another U.S. Supreme Court case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 dealing with the same issue of a child born to Chinese parents made the same ruling and also declared him to be a natural born citizen in the ruling by virtue of his right to citizenship by birth. All of those cases were in the 1800s.
There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1939 with the title Perkins v. Elg http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/325.html which dealt with the issue of a woman who was born in the U.S. to Swedish citizens who returned to Sweden with her when she was four years old. Her father was naturalized prior to this as a U.S. Citizen and held dual citizenship. She then came back to the U.S. and was admitted entry as a citizen at the age of 21. For whatever reason, her father later did away with his U.S. Citizenship status and the equivalent of the INS at the time declared she was to be deported. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this, finding she was a natural born U.S. Citizen by right of birth and even declared she was eligible to be President of the United States in the ruling. A past President, Chester Arthur, was born with an Irish father who was not yet naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, though his mother was born in Vermont where Arthur himself was born.
Detractors like to ignore all of information and court cases and instead rely totally on a case Minor v. Happersett - seeming to deliberately misquote the ruling - indeed, the justices specifically stated they were not making a finding of every scenario that constitutes a natural born citizen in their ruling: The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ***For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.*** Minor v. Happersett - full text of ruling https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
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.