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

Please read the whole thing at link
1 posted on 06/10/2018 9:43:49 AM PDT by Lurkinanloomin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Lurkinanloomin
Really good to know that some issues never die, no matter how many times they've been beaten to death, and no matter how irrelevant they are to anything happening today.

Well done!

2 posted on 06/10/2018 10:02:33 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: DMZFrank; fortes fortuna juvat; TheConservativeTejano; stylin19a; RJS1950; arrogantsob; ...

Article II eligibility.
Nicely laid out in this piece.


3 posted on 06/10/2018 10:02:50 AM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here of Citizen Parents__Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurkinanloomin

Kamela Harris?


10 posted on 06/10/2018 11:19:31 AM PDT by morphing libertarian ( Build Kate's Wall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurkinanloomin
The Constitution, Art. II, says in pertinant part: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

Since everyone who was a citizen at the time of adoption is dead we can remove the grandfather clause wording. We are left with “No Person except a natural born Citizen [...] shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

Why does the Constitution speak of “citizens” and separately of “natural born citizens”? Why is the word “natural” inserted? It is a matter of allegiance.

A person can be a “citizen” if they were citizens or subjects in some other country first but have come here and met the naturalization requirements. Also, if one is the offspring of a citizen and a non-citizen, then one is a US citizen. However, in both these cases it can be argued that the person might choose allegiance to their former country or to the country of the foreign-born parent or at least the allegiance might be considered divided. That is, there is no natural allegiance of the offspring to one or the other parent’s country. It is this divided or alienated allegiance that the Constitutional provision is designed to prohibit.

If, however, both of one’s parents are themselves US citizens at the time of one's birth, then one is a “citizen” as well as a “natural born citizen”. The “natural born citizen” is one who at birth has no natural allegiance to any other country and the Framers felt could be trusted to be loyal to the US and not act as a foreign agent. In short, a natural born citizen is one who cannot be argued to be anything but; there is no possible argument that he might be a citizen elsewhere. [footnote: Also, in their time, the rules of royal succession held sway throught much of the world and the Founders wished to forstall any potential claims by the crowned heads of Europe or their scions to sovereignty in the US.]

Note that native born is not the same as natural born. Native born simply refers to the place of one’s birth, i.e., one’s nativity. The term does not speak to the legal circumstances of a birth, merely to its location.

12 posted on 06/10/2018 11:37:50 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck ( Socialism consumes EVERYTHING!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurkinanloomin

SR 511 addressed this and agreed NBC meant born in the USA to two US citizen parents. Hellary and Soetoro were both in the committee and signed off on THE DEFINITION. Funny, SR 511 was to vet McIdiot and there was never a vetting of Soetoro’s eligibility.


21 posted on 06/10/2018 12:23:25 PM PDT by bgill (CDC site, "We don't know how people are infected with Ebola.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurkinanloomin

BUMP for later.


38 posted on 06/10/2018 2:15:12 PM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurkinanloomin; null and void; aragorn; azishot; AZ .44 MAG; Baynative; Beautiful_Gracious_Skies; ..
.

Check out article and comments.

48 posted on 06/11/2018 5:46:33 AM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurkinanloomin

And you’re dredging this up again because...?


56 posted on 06/11/2018 7:25:56 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lurkinanloomin
1787

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).

June 27 1787. IN CONVENTION (Vattel's legal work is read aloud during the Federal Convention) "...that an equal vote in each State was essential to the federal idea, and was founded in justice & freedom, not merely in policy: that tho' the States may give up this right of sovereignty, yet they had not, and ought not:In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he [Luther Martin] read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers -- Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he [L.M.] read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford:" From Madison's Notes on the Convention.
Similar notes on Vattel being read during the convention can be found in the notes of Rufus King and Robert Yates as well.

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
https://books.google.com/books?id=vTBIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269#v=onepage&q&f=false

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "natural born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

63 posted on 06/11/2018 12:04:30 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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