Posted on 06/23/2012 6:13:41 AM PDT by urtax$@work
Contemplating about the subjects of Citizen and natural born Citizen , if anything, has shown me that the few words in the Constitution have sooo... many aspects that have been discovered, realized, understood thru discussions here on FR since 2008.
The FReeper postings from individuals across the country with varied backgrounds and educations have shown me all those varied aspects of better understanding of a subject, specifically the qualification aspects to hold federal office in our country.
Sometimes understanding or epiphanies of the NBC issues have come to me when i was not expecting such. The latest instance was yesterday when i was digging thru my college boxes (to show our youngest college bounder) and ran across my US History Survey text and leafed thru it. Flipped back to the appendices to the US Constitution . I was rereading the requirements to hold office and thinking about how to explain to a noob about the issue. ( I would show bar graphs of the stiffer requirements from US Rep to US Sen to President.)
Then it came to me that sometimes its more than just the plain words themselves that describe our laws but it's how the words are ARRANGED. Reread the qualifications of Rep., Sen., and president. There is one thing missing from the presidential citizenship phrase that is in the other two office holders citizen phrases.....It's the NUMBER OF YEARS. There are prescribed years for Rep and Sen to be Citizens. There are NO PRESCRIBED YEARS FOR NBC- which (again) reinforces the idea that it is attained only at birth.
I know NBC has been well discussed here but i don’t recall specifically the lack of prescribed years wording in conjunction with NBC and what that implies. If i did miss this little point in any previous discussion sorry to have wasted your time.
The number of years as a citizen makes sense in that an NBC would be at least 35 years a citizen to be eligible for president, while a citizen of the United States would only be a citizen following naturalization (if not an NBC themselves). But, of course, the president has a residency requirement to make up for the lack of requirement for how many years he or she has been a citizen. What may be implied is that the president cannot have ever been a citizen of another country. As Vattel says, a natural citizen is a person who inherits the same citizenship as his father by tacit consent. Obama would have had to reject Kenyan and Indonesian citizenship in order to truly be a natural-born citizen.
I foresee a state going rogue, so to speak, especially in light of Obama ignoring the SCOTUS today in the AZ case.
Suppose state ‘X’ unilaterally passes a law decreeing that any anchor baby born within its borders is not a U.S. citizen? Force the Feds to go after them. Play the game the way Obama does.
I am very confident that if Rubio or Jindal is elected that no court will even come close to removing them just as Obama still sits in the White House. While this legal theory is currently popular around here I don’t see it ever being adopted. I predict that when his supreme royal Obamic crapness is removed from office no one will care anymore.
I would rather discuss reasons as to why either man should perhaps not be VP. In Rub’s case this seemingly ill-advised immigration bill is exhibit A.
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.