Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Technical Editor
Yes, okay. At least we are now moving towards each other in our effort to find a common definition of what the Constitutional phrase "natural born" U.S. Citizen means.

It is here I would also like to point out, while there may be statutory definitions, as well as regulatory definitions, of what a "natural born" citizen is. We are only interested in the Constitutional definition of what a "natural born" U.S. citizen as it pertains to Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

I will agree with you, the Constitution doesn't actually define what a natural born U.S. citizen is, it is for that reason we must go to the writers' original intent. As to their original intent, we can start by looking at the way they constructed Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution: "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."

Since the writers of Clause 5 clearly differentiated between a "...natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States"... by using the coordinating conjunction "or", we can safely assume the two terms were seen by the writer's of the Clause 5 as different. If the two terms were seen by the writers of Clause 5 as the same, there would have been no need to place any coordinating conjunction there at all.

Moreover, the second part of this sentence: "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"... was clearly meant to be the grandfather clause, allowing those who were merely U.S. citizens, but not "natural born" citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution, to be eligible to the Office of President as well. We can further assume that "natural born" was something more special by way of citizenship than by simply being a citizen by the construct of this phrase.

So what was the difference between a U.S. Citizen and a "natural born" U.S. Citizen the writers of Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution had in mind when they constructed this sentence?

Can there really be any other meaning to a "natural born" citizen, as it pertains to Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, than a person born of two U.S. Citizen parents?

ex animo

davidfarrar

472 posted on 07/06/2009 11:16:24 AM PDT by DavidFarrar (Constitution, 2nd Amendment,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies ]


To: DavidFarrar
Can there really be any other meaning to a "natural born" citizen, as it pertains to Article ll, Section l, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, than a person born of two U.S. Citizen parents? Yes, there can: a person born in the United States. The founding fathers were not born in the United States. The United States didn't exist. And several were not born in any of the American colonies. Yet they were eligible to run for president, weren't they? For example, Alexander Hamilton was born in the West Indies, not in one of the thirteen colonies.
474 posted on 07/07/2009 7:31:48 AM PDT by Technical Editor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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