Posted on 02/05/2015 6:37:16 AM PST by wtd
Don't be silly. This is FR. Most of us don't read most articles most of the time. Maybe we read most of most articles most of the time, but not always.
It is pretty clear that only the vaginal birth, which is done in an open savanna and without epidural, is to be considered natural.
But in this case, the person in question is the one who POSTED the article.
That was a new one on me.
;-)
“Then it’s not moot.”
It’s mute and irrevalunt!
At least that’s how they say it in Cleveland!
It's a fair question but the fact that Obama's eligibility is now "moot" but Cruz', Jindal's, and Rubio's aren't is a sad commentary.
According to the brief she filed she's specifically challenging Obama's eligibility for the office, and mentions that three other candidates on the horizon she believed are also ineligible as further need for the court to rule.
That part of your statement is proof that reasonable and responsible people can have varying interpretations of NBC, therefore the law as written is too vague to intelligently and consistently enforce, and should by repaired by amendment or supreme court decision, and I prefer legislative remedy over judicial intervention. But the amendment process will not be attempted without a ruling from the SC.
if being a citizen was enough, as it is for ALL other federal positions, they would never have used the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ for POTUS
obviously, it’s a different level of requirement.
they discussed it in the federalist papers. their intent was to insure the person taking office would not have split allegiances, at least by birth.
hence the term, natural born citzen.
a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... as there are no alternatives
you are wrong.
if being a citizen was enough, as it was for all other Constitutionally defined positions, they wouldn’t have used a different term for POTUS
So so so many problems in such a short response: but mainly the idea that a law too vague to intelligently enforce should probably be ignored. Complication is the bureaucratic devil's playground. The intent of the law CLEARLY does not impact Cruz. To a true conservative, the intent of the law is superior to the letter of the law when the letter A: contradicts the intent or B: is a mumble jumble.
Second, there HAVE been some legislative clarifications that tend to ease the burden on this.
Third, there are NO CONSERVATIVE LEGAL SCHOLARS who think this is a problem, including Cruz himself.
Exactly. Under the broad definitions some conservatives are now willing to accept, some of the potential GOP candidates are “natural born citizens” of more than one country. If we rewind the clock, Winston Churchill would have been eligible to serve as President after serving as Britain’s Prime Minister.
If her case is valid, where is Mark Levin and Landmark Legal, or Larry Klyman’s group, or the ACLJ joining her??????????
....and you think this helps YOUR argument?
incorrect.
another situation the founders wanted to avoid was a foreign king becoming president. if being a citizen was enough, like BJindahl, MRubio and BH0bama, then william and kate could have a kid in NYC and that kid would be eligible to be king of england as well as POTUS.
this is clearly against the founders intent... and why they used the term, natural born citizen.
BOTH parents AND born on the soil is required... as a child born this way could only be a US citizen.
remember:
a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... AS THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES
the ‘interpretation’ only varies when people are trying to slide something by the rest of us.
WChurchill's mother was American. he was born on british soil to a british father and an American mother. at birth, he was a US citizen as well as a british citizen.
BUT... he was not a natural born citizen of either country.
therefore, he could not become POTUS... insuring the founders intent
I haven’t made my argument and I’m not going to. I’ve argued over this enough the past several years. But do you actually think a man like Churchill, with obvious divided loyalties, would have been constitutionally eligible?
So let’s say Mama sneaks across the border and has little Pedro. Pedro is a citizen. Couple of years later she takes him back to Mexico. 30 years later he returns and runs for President.
He’s a natural born citizen?
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.