Posted on 08/26/2009 12:40:24 PM PDT by kellynla
If Obama's father was a Kenyan then how could Hussein be eligible to be POTUS?
President = Born in the U.S. (automatically, by birth in the U.S., you are a citizen, “citizen at birth” — see Title 8, Chapter 12, Section 1401(a).)
Senator = Born anywhere in the world and naturalized a U.S. citizen.
It’s so easy.
People keep bring up that argument as if it held water.
Jefferson and Jackson were adult citizens, and Buchanan’s parents were US citizens, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. All citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were ‘grandfathered in’ relative to the “natural born’ requirement.
Arthur apparently lied about (or obfuscated, to be polite) his father’s citizenship status and it was not pursued at the time.
Wilson’s and Hoover’s mothers, not fathers, were foreign born. As understood at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, one’s citizenship was derived from the father, not the mother, thus as US citizens at the time of their childrens’ births, Messrs Wilson and Hoover passed along their citizenship to their sons, making them ‘natural born.”
No. Absolutely not.
A native born citizen is one who is born in the United States.
A natural born citizen is one born in the United States to parents who are citizens of the United States
It’s really rather simple.
You are off by a country mile.
“Natural Born is not simply Native Born.. and implying that the founders of this nation used the term Natural Born to mean Native Born is unbelievable ignorant.”
*******************
Please cite any clause in COTUS, statute law, case law, Madison’s notes from the ConCon, the COTUS ratification debates, any law dictionary, any common textbook on Con Law, or any common English dictionary to support the opinion that NBC = born in U.S. of two citizen parents.
Native born equates to denizen, in my reading. Natural born citizenship is the pinnacle of a progressive, incremental process of acquiring the full rights of citizenship, under a system contemplated and debated at length by Congress in 1790. Length of residency, ability to own or inherit property, eligibility to vote, eligibility to elected office in tiered levels based upon increasing length of residence ... it’s all quite orderly.
I posted a thread on this last night, and was disappointed in the lack of response. The link, to The University Of Chicago Press’ “The Founders’ Constitution,” contains a veritable treasure trove of Congressional Records, Supreme Court decisions, etcetera, all cross referenced and searchable. You can find the thread under keyword “Consitution.”
The Presidency was reserved unto the children of naturalized citizens at a minimum. Citizens by nature, without an iota of doubt as to their allegiance due to being under the complete and sole jurisdiction, from birth, of the United States, had no such generational “waiting period.”
Outside of this, the rights and duties of citizenship were and are indistinguishable under the Constiution, from the most newly minted, naturalized citizen to someone such as myself, who doesn’t have one single ancestor who arrived here later than 1738.
Only the Constitution makes any distinction, and that distinction pertains to elected, national office. Statutory law makes no distinction, because it literally cannot make a distinction, under the Constitution.
If it weren’t so late and I weren’t so tired, I’d have put an explanation such as yours for another poster ... there are those who don’t seem or maybe want to comprehend the difference between a natural born citizen, and a native born citizen, much less why that distinction was important to the Founders and remains important today.
Will look up your post from yesterday. The forum page on this site moves so rapidly it’s easy for some really good threads to get ‘lost’ ... will bump when I find it.
“All citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were ‘grandfathered in’ relative to the “natural born’ requirement.”
********************
Have you considered the possibility that the reason for that clause in COTUS is that there was nobody 35 years old, or older, who was born a citizen of the U.S., for the simple reason that 35 years prior to the adoption of COTUS there was no U.S.?
Pay particularly close attention to Mr. Story and Mr. Wilson, when you follow the link I posted, to a search of “The Founders’ Constitution” for natural born citizen.
It’s a lengthy read, with a lot of digging. I used search and find within the text for key words, to skim through it, but I’m still not even close to reading it all.
This is the Donofrio/UCONN thread I mentioned earlier.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2325025/posts
am I supposed to say Duh ?
did you see kellynla’s account was banned? He’s been a major contributor here, can’t imagine what happened, maybe some gunhappy admin?
Imagine where we’d have been with research on this, if that infernal “fake” birth certificate ruse hadn’t been sprung, back in June of 2008. It very effectively shut down FR’s vaunted research capabilities, for anything but that wild goose chase. It’s taken me since October, to get this far.
It makes me physically ill, to think of what has been allowed to happen. I worry about precedent, should a full term be permitted, too.
I’ve read sincere replies here on FR, from people who fervently believe that not just our first Presidents, but the parents of many (George Washington, for instance), were natural born citizens. I’m not sure what people aren’t getting about the so-called grandfather clause, or why the then-newness of our nation necessitated it, but there is a lot of well-meaning ignorance around. Some appear dumbfounded. Not sure why, maybe it’s subtle attempts at disinfo, I just don’t know.
Neither “Freedom of Choice” nor “Right to Privacy” mentitioned in the Constitution, but these two phantoms haunt our legal system nevertheless.
What there is, however, is the centuries long Law of Nations, spelling out clearly natural laws concerning citizenship and other international law.
Barack Obama II may have been elected President, but he was ineligible from the get go, and is an usurper. He is NOT a natural born citizen.
Yes, and it will be unfortunate for five politicians (if they do this, they’re not justices) to slit the throats of the American people and destroy the most prosperous and Godly country in the history of civilization. The United States of America is the only country where the most people can prosper and pursue happiness. To allow its destruction for the sake of a tiny group of losers will be an historic crime against humanity.
I truly don’t understand those who argue as if they want this.
And where is that defined?
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.