Posted on 04/29/2011 3:15:09 PM PDT by llandres
No wonder so many people are confused, or ignorant, about this subject and its Constitutional importance relative to Presidential eligibility. This first link - http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PlaceR - is a 9 min. interview with Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor, by the day's cspan moderator. Listen to the questions and his answers. Sheesh.
Here's another link to the Washington Journal segment that followed, with call-ins and emails, titled, "Should U.S. presidents be 'natural born' citizens?"
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/OpenPhones7290
Should? Should??? Folks, this is what we're up against - ignorance, misinformation, apathy or a combination thereof.
Pin pulled. Grenade tossed. Wait for results.
Why don't they just ask, "Should we ignore the Constitution?"
This is the “hyperlink” for the WJ call-in segment:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/OpenPhones7290
Our forefathers certainly didn’t mean born and raised muslim.
Obviously the answer for both this host and this “professor” is yes. both discuss essentially 14th Amendment citizenship and completely omit any discussion of the Framers and what they meant by the use of the phrase. If this “professor” professes to be teaching constitutional law it is quite disturbing. They speak openly of the meaning of the phrase being determined by “consensus” and the U.S. Code and don’t seem at all interested in the Constitution.
There seem to be at least two schools of thought on this subject. I tend to buy into NBC meaning “born of two US citizens, regardless of location.” But I have seen people argue other points of view. I don’t know all the court decisions, but we have now got to the point it means “anybody born here.” Which I find ridiculous, call me old-fashioned.
I find it ridiculous as well, otherwise why preface citizen with natural born if it didn't have a different definition.
Bingo!
So simple, so obvious.
To my knowledge, the issue has never been defined or decided by SCOTUS.
However, historically, when this clause was put in, nobody could have been a citizen because he was born of two US citizen parents, since his parents could not possibly have been US citizens because the US did not exist at that time. Thus, most of the parents of US citizens at that time would have been British or other European citizens.
The Founders obviously regarded the location of the birth as the important point. They also included people who had not been born in the US but had come here and been living in future US territory at the time of independence (hence, the phrase, a citizen at the time of...etc.), but that was only for the period at the time of the Signing.
So I’d say it’s geographical. You’re born here, you’re a US citizen.
I still don’t think he was born here, but that’s beside the point.
They prefaced "citizen" with "natural born" to distinguish it from "naturalized" citizens.
And considering that the founding fathers chose their words VERY carefully, I’d have to believe that they meant 2 US citizen parents and born on US soil...
Yes, it is obvious that "natural born citizen" is narrower than "citizen." "Natural born citizen" excludes "naturalized citizens," who are born as foreigners. The framers wanted to prevent the possibility of a foreigner emigrating to the U.S., becoming a citizen, and becoming President.
Or, they meant anyone born on U.S. soil. That would still be distinguished from mere “citizens,” since “citizens” include foreigners who immigrate and become naturalized citizens.
That’s good stuff, but to resort to the worn out logic: what if your parents were on vacation in France and you got borned there? I think you are a citizen of the US just because your parents were.
I think the courts should rule on this, problem is I might not like their decision.
What is a Natural Born Citizen? Not Barack Hussein Obama.
You’re right in stating that it’s never been defined by SCOTUS, but it looks like it means that anyone born in the United States is a “natural born citizen”. I can’t see anyway around it.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Born and raised Muslim has nothing to do with whether someone is Constitutionally eligible to be President.
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.