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

Skip to comments.

Natural Born Citizen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 ^

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 ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: afterbirfturds; birftards; mediabias; naturalborncitizen; obama; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-245 next last
To: Tennessee Nana

Yes. Sarah Palin and Rand Paul.


21 posted on 03/11/2013 1:43:25 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mouell

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.


22 posted on 03/11/2013 1:44:47 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

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


23 posted on 03/11/2013 1:52:48 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: q_an_a
I doubt that the Founders imagined that a child could be on a trip with his parents or that a parent could be in the service protecting America while being based in Germany or Japan, when they wrote about “natural born”.

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"

24 posted on 03/11/2013 1:59:54 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Humor! How very refreshing on one of these birther threads.


25 posted on 03/11/2013 2:03:05 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
It took me even longer ...
26 posted on 03/11/2013 2:06:37 PM PDT by MosesKnows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

Nice try, obamnoid, but the 1795 Act removed that little error.


27 posted on 03/11/2013 2:09:19 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: q_an_a
q_an_a said: "geez, that is about as rational as ..."

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.

28 posted on 03/11/2013 2:18:29 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
I feel like I'm in a twilight zone where the logical capacity of the crazy democrats and leftists has been transferred to ostensible conservatives.

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.

29 posted on 03/11/2013 2:19:57 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

> 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.


30 posted on 03/11/2013 2:24:47 PM PDT by Jyotishi (Seeking the truth, a fact at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

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?


31 posted on 03/11/2013 2:43:41 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

And then it was repealed 5 years later.


32 posted on 03/11/2013 2:50:18 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

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.


33 posted on 03/11/2013 3:41:54 PM PDT by etcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
Obama is ineligible because he naturalized in 1983.

Evidence?

34 posted on 03/11/2013 3:50:37 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: null and void

ping


35 posted on 03/11/2013 3:57:24 PM PDT by Shimmer1 (No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer1; Absolutely Nobama; aragorn; Art in Idaho; Aurorales; autumnraine; azishot; AZ .44 MAG; ...
Constitutional Eligibility

36 posted on 03/11/2013 4:09:19 PM PDT by null and void (Gun confiscation enables tyranny. Don't enable tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

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.


37 posted on 03/11/2013 4:17:45 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

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.


38 posted on 03/11/2013 4:29:58 PM PDT by MestaMachine (Sometimes the smartest man in the room is standing in the midst of imbeciles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Woulsn’t you like to see someone ask Obama a really tough constitutional question? ;^D


39 posted on 03/11/2013 4:36:08 PM PDT by cradle of freedom (Long live the Republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
The supreme court needs to settle this once and for all.

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.

40 posted on 03/11/2013 4:39:36 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-245 next last

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.

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