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

To: WXRGina

Not according to anyone who has studied con law.


30 posted on 05/09/2013 8:18:46 PM PDT by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: HawkHogan

Hawk, that’s bunk.

The Founders made a distinction between the requirements for senators and representatives (citizens) and president and vice-president (natural born citizen). They did this for a very distinct and important reason—to prevent someone with dual or duplicitous loyalties from assuming the office of president.

If you or anyone else doesn’t like the Constitution, convene a convention and change it (which would be a very, very bad idea). It says what it says, and natural born citizen means the same thing now as it did when the Founders wrote it in our Constitution, regardless of how many people choose to ignore, deny or pervert its meaning.


35 posted on 05/09/2013 8:26:09 PM PDT by WXRGina (The Founding Fathers would be shooting by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

To: HawkHogan
You seem to hold the belief that 'Natural Born Citizen' is to be construed to mean the same as 'Citizen at Birth', is that correct?

According to the rule of Constitutional Construction, Verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent, words should be interpreted to give them some effect.

If what you hold is true, what meaning is given to the word 'Natural'? Thank you.
239 posted on 05/13/2013 3:50:45 PM PDT by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | 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