Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: editor-surveyor

Yes, you can argue that Barry is not a natural born citizen, but you do not have to be a natural born citizen to qualify for POTUS.

There is nothing in the Constitution requiring that the mother be 18. That comes from a misreading of Hawaii law.


6,503 posted on 08/04/2009 6:22:26 PM PDT by FreeAlaska32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6419 | View Replies ]


To: FreeAlaska32

but you do not have to be a natural born citizen to qualify for POTUS.

________________________

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

There are three requirements to be eligible to the Office of President. One of those is being a natural born citizen.

The grandfather clause expired long ago. The reason it existed is because there were no natural born citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Most were British Subjects so they had to write themselves in. After that clause expired, those who were born British Subjects were no longer eligible because they weren’t natural born citizens.

On Obama’s, “Fight the Smears” website, it acknowledges his British citizenship via the British Nationality Act of 1948. He was born with British citizenship. He is, at a minimum, a dual citizen at birth and his eligibility is questionable.

Our Founding Fathers just fought to free us from the King. The last thing they would allow is a British Subject to run the country, particularly the military. Over their dead bodies...


6,534 posted on 08/04/2009 6:52:06 PM PDT by wndawmn666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6503 | View Replies ]

To: FreeAlaska32
but you do not have to be a natural born citizen to qualify for POTUS.

Wow. Just wow.

You you wnt to reconsider that stand, maybe, hmmm?????

6,586 posted on 08/04/2009 7:56:18 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 195 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6503 | View Replies ]

To: FreeAlaska32
but you do not have to be a natural born citizen to qualify for POTUS.
This saddens me, it is indicative of brainwashing. Can someone intervene?
6,630 posted on 08/04/2009 8:55:26 PM PDT by redkite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6503 | View Replies ]

To: FreeAlaska32

“Yes, you can argue that Barry is not a natural born citizen, but you do not have to be a natural born citizen to qualify for POTUS.” Is English not your first language? ... If Barry is old enough to have been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, then he fits the other category. Otherwise, he must be natural born. Now peddle your trike somewhere else.


6,652 posted on 08/04/2009 9:29:12 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6503 | View Replies ]

To: FreeAlaska32
I don't know where you got that idea. Read Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the constitution. Then, since the predictable response will be that the Naturalization Act of 1790 made someone one of whose parents was a citizen natural born, read the 1795 act which repeals the 1790 act. Then, if you search every piece of legislation in effect, you will find no reference to natural born citizen. Then, you may say natural born citizen is not defined in the constitution, as Patrick Leahy, Hillary, McGaskill, Obama and Chertoff (as an invited comment) did, while using the very Vattel definition to make McCain an honorary natural born citizen, and quiet the Republicans, who all knew, because he told them, the Obama’s father was a British citizen. Finally, you can read John Marshall, or John Jay, or Benjamin Franklin, or John Bingham telling us the definition, and with several of them, I'll note Marshall in the prevailing decision in The Venus, 1814, that the most concise formulation, the one used by the USSC, is Vattel’s and he quotes it. It was the common law in effect at the time the constitution was written, and for ever after - never amended. The mother, even if she were 35, couldn't confer natural born citizenship without the father too being a citizen. You are either confused, or attempting to confuse.
6,733 posted on 08/04/2009 11:05:00 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6503 | View Replies ]

To: FreeAlaska32

Try reading the constitution of the U.S.

It definately requires a Natural Born Citizen, and by the definition of the day, as given in The Law of Nations, it means that both parents were U.S. citizens.

Hawiian law has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this.


6,853 posted on 08/05/2009 9:54:52 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6503 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson