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

To: Badabing Badablonde

You’re kidding, right?

You see no room for argument in Article II, Section I, the rest of us see *no definition* of “natural born citizen” in Article II, Section I.

The Constitution simply states the standard. It does nothing to explain what it means.

And as for those “citizens at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”? They are all a little bit dead by now. This provision was a one-time grandfathering in of the people who were not natural born citizens because their parents were not Americans, nor had America even existed at the time of their birth.

It in no way opened eligibility to be president up in the future to non-natural born citizens. Once that generation was gone, the only standard for eligibility was “natural born citizen.”


66 posted on 12/06/2008 8:34:08 PM PST by fightinJAG (I love the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: fightinJAG

Like I said before...This must have some merit.

The “Obots” seem to be coming to us ,asking questions


67 posted on 12/06/2008 8:37:13 PM PST by OL Hickory (Im going off the rails, on the crazy Train.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: fightinJAG
If you read this article you can see that the "natural born citizen" part of this clause has been at issue a number of times...never more important than today.

I would think the Supreme Court would want to hear this case..but I fear that won't happen.

Here is another interesting excerpt:

As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court had already tackled the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause prior to Wong Kim Ark, and unlike the Kim Ark court, did consider the intent and meaning of the words by those who introduced the language of the clause. In the Slaughterhouse cases the court noted “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html

69 posted on 12/06/2008 8:37:33 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: fightinJAG
You’re kidding, right?

You see no room for argument in Article II, Section I, the rest of us see *no definition* of “natural born citizen” in Article II, Section I.

I see no room for argument, except for those who have an agenda.

Arthur is dead. Obama is going to be our president. Let it go. No person and no court is going to be successful in challenging his citizenship.

And before I am accused of being, what have they called it?....an Obama-bot.....check out my past posts.

Natural born citizen is just what it says.....a citizen by birth born in one of the 50 or territories. If it were an issue, it would have been addressed and gaveled years ago.

142 posted on 12/07/2008 6:08:56 PM PST by Badabing Badablonde (New to the internet? CLICK HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | 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