Posted on 11/18/2016 10:58:14 AM PST by reaganaut1
There was this thing called the American Revolution where we rejected the rule of Kings and Queens.
I just thought of 2 people who he could pick that are both lawyers. One of them is even a Constitutional Law scholar ;) Barak H. Obama Jr. of Illinois; or Hillary R. Clinton of New York
I predict that there will be at least one Freeper who can come up with someone they think could make a better candidate than these 2 lawyers ;) Anyone want to try?
I still have saved somewhere your great educational piece on natural born citizen. You were an influence on me to not give up this fight.
I now have this on my home page:
“Birtherism” is the greatest Alinsky ever perpetrated.
They have gotten the American people to reject one of the most valuable safeguards bequeathed to us by the founders.
The natural born citizen clause served us well until we ignored it.
Barry Soetoro/Barack Hussein Obama should be proof enough of the wisdom of the founders when they tried to prevent him from being President by requiring someone who could only be a US citizen and nothing else.
Born here of citizen parents.
Naturally a US citizen because there is no other possibility.
One cannot be anything else and also be a natural born citizen.
It does not matter if he was born in Hawaii if his father was a foreign national.
Children of foreign nationals inherit the nationality of their foreign national parent(s).
Natural born citizen means born here of citizen parents.
No other possible citizenship(s).
Only when one cannot be anything else can one be a natural born citizen.
No foreign birth.
No foreign parent(s)
No foreign citizenship(s)
No foreign influence on the Presidency is what John Jay stated in a letter to George Washington as the reason for insisting on a natural born citizen.
Obama told us he was born a British subject.
Who believes Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Jay, Monroe, Madison, etc. would have found him to be a natural born citizen?
Who believes they would have thought the recently deceased King of Thailand was eligible to be President?
He was born in Cambridge MA.
Usurpation Day, January 20, 2009, happened with the complete cooperation of both parties.
They want the Constitution changed without the hassle of amending the Constitution.
Confuse people about the clear meaning of a three word phrase and voila, every anchor baby and Winston Churchill is eligible.
The bench was the reason the GOP went along with the fig leaf resolution for McCain that was used by the Democrats as cover for Obama.
Jindal, Rubio, Haley, George P. Bush and Cruz were all up and comers and the future of the party and ineligible.
The truth of the Kenyanesian Usurpation will never see the light of day because both parties cooperated in the violation of the Constitution
A difference without a distinction.It was once the law and is no longer the law.
I do not want someone who believes a child born to a Palestinian father and an American mother in Saudi Arabia is a natural born citizen of the US and eligible to be President. Such a decision, once rendered, would gut the natural born citizen clause in perpetuity.
When I was young they told mothers to return home to preserve natural born citizen status.
My friend, born in Germany while his father was in the Air Force, was told he was not eligible.
They are still citizens if their parents file for CRBA, but not natural born citizens, except if on US territory such as Guam.
Do you have a source for that?
The current State Department website describes what is needed for citizenship, they make no mention of natural born status.
Most of the establishment wants the requirement eliminated, that’s why they went along with the Kenyanesian Usurpation.
There are still millions of us old enough to have know what it means, they’ll have to wait until we die to get away with it again.
Oh well, that settles it then.
No, that's not what it means.
Geez, don't be so thin skinned.
“Can’t agree with that.
Oh well, that settles it then.”
What, I’m not entitled to an opinion?
Produce something that shows my opinion to be false.
Not being thin skinned.I like to keep things simple.It was there,then it disappeared.So it was "overturned" (although not necessarily by the strictest definition of the word).
(shaking head)
There is absolutely no evidence that exists that will change your opinion else you would accept Lurkinanloomin's definition.
“There is absolutely no evidence that exists that will change your opinion else you would accept Lurkinanloomin’s definition.”
What BS. Produce a statute. Produce a Supreme Court decision. Produce anything.
Minor vs Happersett 1875
Chief Justice Waite:
“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.”
Okay, well, you may be right.
I still don’t like it that children of military officers serving abroad should not be regarded as native born citizens, though.
Let’s live in the real world. First of all, if Cruz is the only one who holds that opinion, the court will not rule with him. Second, if he’s solid on everything else, that’s immeasurably more important. Or would it be okay for you to have another John Roberts? If you’re a conservative, it means you have to have wisdom too, and not so much abstract thinking to make your case.
They are citizens, the only thing natural born citizen impacts is eligibility for President and Vice President.
He could well be another Roberts.
Being flexible about something as important and basic as natural born citizen is troubling.
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.