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

To: Jeff Winston
Would we want those who MAKE OUR LAWS to have any kind of divided allegiance with some other country? Wouldn't we want them to only be born on US soil of citizen parents?

Jeff, the legislative branch consists of hundreds of elected officers. The executive branch (for all intents and purposes) consists of just one man.

It doesn't take a genius to see why the qualifications for congressional offices wouldn't be quite as restrictive than they would be for the one and only highest office in the land.

A single, or even a handful of congressmen with divided loyalties, would be kept in check by the allegiances of their fellow congressmen. Who's going to keep a President in check?

The proof that the Framers thought this through (and came to the same conclusion) is written in the various qualifications for office in the Constitution. The Framers were meticulous and deliberate in crafting that document. Logic, reason, and history guided them in that task.

162 posted on 05/02/2013 4:06:49 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies ]


To: Windflier
The proof that the Framers thought this through (and came to the same conclusion) is written in the various qualifications for office in the Constitution. The Framers were meticulous and deliberate in crafting that document. Logic, reason, and history guided them in that task.

The problem, Windflier, is that the meaning of "natural born citizen" was clear to all of the Founders, Framers, and their entire generation. "Natural born" was a known, defined term with a specific meaning. And it simply did not mean what birthers claim it meant.

It is exactly like claiming that when the Constitution says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," the phrase, "the right of the people" doesn't refer to the right of individuals, but to the state governments. So therefore there is no individual right to keep and bear arms.

But it doesn't. "PEOPLE" doesn't mean "STATE GOVERNMENTS."

Likewise, "natural born citizen" doesn't mean that citizen parents are required. It never did.

But you and other birthers are determined to change the meaning of a term in the Constitution, or to pretend that it means something other than what it has always meant. And the reason is because you find it convenient to do so, and because you don't like what it actually means.

This is the exact same thing liberals do. It is, in fact, a LIBERAL approach to the Constitution and to law. It is an approach that says, "It doesn't matter what the law meant when it was written. Today it means what I say it means."

178 posted on 05/03/2013 8:26:36 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | 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