Posted on 03/11/2013 12:15:07 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Respected constitutional scholar and lawyer Herb Titus sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is. Herb Titus credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. Titus gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to Herb Titus in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Barack Obama are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Yes. Sarah Palin and Rand Paul.
No it is not a silly argument, especially since the oval office is being held by a ineligible president. Like constitutional scholar Herb Titus said, the founders wanted ONLY a natural born Citizen to be president so he wouldn’t have divided loyalties in case one of his parents were a foreign national. Obama’s father was just that. So was Rubio’s father. So was Cruz’s father. So was both of Jindal’s parents before he was born. All president’s after the grandfather clause ended (with the exception of Chester Arthur)had U.S. Citizen parent’s (plural) prior to their births.
a natural born citizen is someone that is a citizen... as there are no alternatives
if your parents are foreign nationals, you can claim their country of citizenship as well as the US. this is exactly what the founders were looking to avoid. someone with loyalties to another country
of course, this is just obvious. anyone arguing anchor babies are ‘natural born citizens’ are either being disingenuous or ignorant
The Naturalization Act of 1790 imagined just that:
"the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens"
Humor! How very refreshing on one of these birther threads.
Nice try, obamnoid, but the 1795 Act removed that little error.
Are you arguing that our Founders were irrational or that "natural born citizen" means something else?
Do you agree that the Founders intended to remove some citizens from consideration for the highest office?
If so, why do you think that was?
Both of my grandsons were born to a foreign national, only one of them in the U.S. Do I think they might grow up to have divided loyalties? Of course I do. They are being raised in a household by a foreigner with beliefs, customs, family, and loyalties associated with their father's country of birth.
Gee, poor me, the Founders cheated me out of having a grandson in the Whitehouse.
The post I responded to was a statement that the Founding Fathers did not imagine births overseas by US citizens. The 1790 Act shows that in fact they did address that issue.
> Obama managing to wiggle his way into the White house did
> not make him eligible...
>
> Meanwhile dont we have anyone who is not eligiblity
> challenged to run in 2016 ???
Or someone who can wiggle his way into the White House.
And they corrected their wording in the subsequent 1795 Act. HAve you read it, or do you just quote from favored sources designed to support further obfuscation of the realities?
And then it was repealed 5 years later.
This issue is often confused with the right of United States Citizen to be treated equally. This constitutional provision, however, is not about any individual’s right to equal treatment or about any person’s hopes and dreams for themselves or their children. It is about the right of the nation as a whole to have a president without question of foreign entanglement. Issues of fairness and individual rights were wisely subjugated to the national interest in having a chief executive with no question of divided loyalty.
Evidence?
ping
Doesn’t matter. The founders wrote a great document but did not define “natural born citizen”. as a result NBC means whatever DC wants it to mean. These days they don’t really care as long as the candidate is a D. R’s are another matter. D’s will define it to suit their purposes.
The supreme court needs to settle this once and for all. For the life of me, I can’t understand why it wasn’t settled decades ago. Do it now before the court is the all obama all the time court.
Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, and other questionable US citizens with future presidential aspirations should take this to court on their own and force the issue.
Woulsn’t you like to see someone ask Obama a really tough constitutional question? ;^D
No, they don't. The voters and their electors can continue to judge the qualification of presidential candidates like they have for over 200 years.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why it wasn’t settled decades ago.
The Constitution does not empower the Supreme Court or any judge to screen or qualify candidates for president. That is the Iranian system, where a state Guardian Council must approve of all presidential candidates. In the United States, both the selection and the removal of presidents is a political function and not a judicial function.
If Cruz or Rubio should run, the voters and their electors shall decide whether or not they are or are not qualified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.