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

To: Windflier

“No person, (except a natural born citizen), (or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution), shall be eligible to the office of President…”

If I am understanding this correctly, a Natural born citizen, is a person who was born on U.S. soil by parents who both were born on U.S. soil.

A U.S. citizen who was born on U.S. soil but one of his parents was born in another country could have become President only during the time that the Constitution was being adopted. After the Constitution was adopted, this person would not be qulified. And the reason he would not qualify is 1) He doesn’t fall under the definition of a Natural Born citizen and 2). He was not a U.S. citizen during the period when the Constitution was being adopted.

Is this correct?


190 posted on 12/04/2008 6:37:51 AM PST by classified
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: classified
If I am understanding this correctly, a Natural born citizen, is a person who was born on U.S. soil by parents who both were born on U.S. soil.

Apparently, there is great contention over this description of Natural Born Citizen, even amongst the members here. I've taken a lot of shots from lawyerly folks over positing this lately.

My understanding is that the Founders' original intent was that no President should have their loyalty divided between America and another nation. The surest way to ensure that, was to plainly state in our Constitution that a President must be a Natural Born Citizen.

The problem is that they failed to define this in the Constitution. I'm sure that at the time of its writing, the Framers felt no need to precisely define such ordinary and plain language. In the parlance of the time, the phrase would have conveyed their meaning and intent with no mis-understanding.

In my opinion, it's the lawyers who have subverted the Founders' original intent by torturing the language of the Constitution to force meanings from it that were never intended.

If this is allowed to continue, then there isn't much point in retaining the Constitution at all, as the basis upon which all US law resides. We might as well re-incorporate the Republic in whatever form the mob wants, and hope for the best.

Naturally, I don't subscribe to that option. It's why I hope that our Supreme Court will come down with a ruling soon that bolsters and clarifies the original intent of the Framers.

350 posted on 12/04/2008 1:02:45 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | 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