Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Retired Intelligence Officer

Based on the original historical meaning of “natural born citizen”, someone born to a foreign citizen on US soil probably does not qualify to serve as POTUS.

The fact that Jindal’s parents were resident aliens who intended on becoming US citizens would probably allow Congress to remove the disability by statute or resolution.

In fact since they have accepted Obama, whose father was a British citizen who had no intention to become a US citizen, you might argue they have already done so.


58 posted on 11/12/2010 5:20:52 PM PST by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: devere

“Based on the original historical meaning of ‘natural born citizen’, someone born to a foreign citizen on US soil probably does not qualify to serve as POTUS.”

Whether or not that’s true, after the 14th amendment it’s moot point.


101 posted on 11/12/2010 5:51:44 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

To: devere
"Based on the original historical meaning of “natural born citizen”, someone born to a foreign citizen on US soil probably does not qualify to serve as POTUS.

The fact that Jindal’s parents were resident aliens who intended on becoming US citizens would probably allow Congress to remove the disability by statute or resolution."

Congress cannot amend the Constitution by statute or resolution. You'd need three quarters of the state legislatures to ratify. Not going to happen.

105 posted on 11/12/2010 5:53:58 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

To: devere
The fact that Jindal’s parents were resident aliens who intended on becoming US citizens would probably allow Congress to remove the disability by statute or resolution.

In fact since they have accepted Obama, whose father was a British citizen who had no intention to become a US citizen, you might argue they have already done so.

Your’s is a reasonable guess but not what our courts and Framer's intended. Having put their lives on the line, they were suspicious of doubt, so suspicious because of how hard it is to know the intent of an ambitious adult, that they denied automatic citizenship to the children of native-born colonists (born on the soil of their colony, remember, we were a British subjets, if the parent died in the revolution. The reasoning was that with the parent dead, there was no way to tell on whose side he fought.

Someone who is a resident has not declared sole allegiance to our Constitution. We had many residents with homes in Europe or England and in The U.S. after the revolution. They might be simply, perhaps wisely, keeping open the option to chose the winning side. For one of these to become President could mean the end of Adam's “nation of laws” (he used “empire” but we get the idea) and not men. Washington was afraid of opportunists from Europe and gave orders to deny non-citizens field grade officer appointments during the war.

Congress cannot “remove the disability by statue.” Congress cannot, by statue, change the meaning of The Constitution. This is called separation of powers, and was clarified by Chief Justice John Marshall, the same Marshall who cited Vattel as the most concise source defining natural born citizenship, and repeated “born on the soil of citizen parents.”

To finish your observation about parents intending to become U.S. citizens, which means swearing sole allegiance to our Constitution, here are the words of Congressman John Bingham, who was AG when he prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, and as principal author of the 14th Amendment said to the House in 1866:

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….

Most with enough concern to read this thread would find the most complete explanations of these issues at the legal blog of Mario Apuzzo, http://puzo1.blogspot.com . Mario, representing a remarkable patriot Commander Charles Kerchner, who personally sent registered letters to Congress in the Summer of 2008 asking them to vet Obama as they had McCain on five separate sets of hearings. Their case is in the docket of the Supreme Court now. The more who understand the more likely the Court, which, according to Justice Clarence Thomas, “is evading the issue,” the more likely they will realize the cost to trust in government if they continue to hide.

Also, right here on Free Republic, rsxid has created a remarkable collection of discussions, reasonably free of trolls whose mission it is to cloud the issue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2512143/posts

141 posted on 11/12/2010 6:19:58 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson