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

To: Lurking Libertarian

“They threw in “natural born” to distinguish presidential-eligible citizens from naturalized citizens, who were not to be eligible.”

If your reasoning is correct, “born Citizen” would have the same effect, right? Why include “natural”?


18 posted on 03/13/2013 5:52:38 PM PDT by Larry - Moe and Curly (Loose lips sink ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Larry - Moe and Curly; Lurking Libertarian
“They threw in “natural born” to distinguish presidential-eligible citizens from naturalized citizens, who were not to be eligible.”

If your reasoning is correct, “born Citizen” would have the same effect, right? Why include “natural”?


Yes, it would.

The Constitution only considers two kinds of citizenship for anyone born after its ratification: via naturalization and via birth.

If you're going to content that a little extra flourish somehow creates a whole new class of citizen, then you're going to have to point to the passage in the Constitution where they lay it out clearly, and where they define any other perks/responsibilities of that third kind of citizen. Because if you can't, the contention falls apart.
24 posted on 03/16/2013 6:26:39 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | 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