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

To: philman_36; Las Vegas Ron

Now of course you will undoubtedly reply that that was a naturalization law. In any event, we have Congress passing a law that clearly and specifically gives the children of US citizens born abroad the right to run for, and serve as, President of the United States.

And these were our nation’s FOUNDING FATHERS that passed this law. It was enacted three short years after the Constitution itself!

It is abundantly clear, then, that the Founding Fathers intended for at least the children of US citizens abroad to be able to run for President. They quickly passed a law that would remove any doubt as to whether such children were eligible to run for President or not.

Of course, Obama is (apparently) the other case: that of a child born on US soil with only one US citizen parent.

Nonetheless, you can spin all you want, but you can’t get away from the plain fact that the obvious intention of the Founding Fathers was very clearly NOT to limit natural born citizen status to ONLY those born BOTH on US soil AND to two US citizen parents.


525 posted on 06/26/2011 6:23:54 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Winston
And these were our nation’s FOUNDING FATHERS that passed this law. It was enacted three short years after the Constitution itself!

AMEN! It gives CLEAR insight into what they were thinking.

It is abundantly clear, then, that the Founding Fathers intended for at least the children of US citizens abroad to be able to run for President. They quickly passed a law that would remove any doubt as to whether such children were eligible to run for President or not.

AMEN AGAIN! I agree absolutely that the members of the First Congress (basically the Delegates to the Convention.) did not regard foreign birth as an obstacle to allegiance. However, an Act of Congress cannot override an Article of the Constitution. So subsequent legislation cannot modify the original meaning of Article II, it can only indicate what the Delegates were thinking when they voted on it. (a small but important difference.)

Of course, Obama is (apparently) the other case: that of a child born on US soil with only one US citizen parent.

Yes, but to a foreign father, something which they absolutely prohibited regarding citizenship. As I have mentioned, in 1789, it was ONLY the Father that determined citizenship. The mother was automatically the same citizenship as her husband in all nations.

Nonetheless, you can spin all you want, but you can’t get away from the plain fact that the obvious intention of the Founding Fathers was very clearly NOT to limit natural born citizen status to ONLY those born BOTH on US soil AND to two US citizen parents.

And you cannot spin away the fact that it was the obvious intention of the Founding Fathers to very clearly PROHIBIT citizenship for the Children of a Foreign Father.

Checkmate.

542 posted on 06/27/2011 6:38:55 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama hides behind the Grass Skirts of Hawaiian Bureaucrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | 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