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

To: mlo
What is the difference between a mere "born citizen" (the Founders considered this phrase, but rejected it) and the more restrictive natural born Citizen and why did the Founders require it of Presidents? (I suspect you won't answer because you can't.)
53 posted on 08/11/2020 9:09:02 PM PDT by elengr (Benghazi betrayal: rescue denied - our guys DIED - treason's the reason obama s/b tried then fried!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]


To: elengr; mlo

“What is the difference between a mere “born citizen” (the Founders considered this phrase, but rejected it) and the more restrictive natural born Citizen...”

First, we have no idea what was considered on this clause of the Constitution. There are no records of any debate on this clause. However, Natural Born Subject was a well known legal term used by the Founders often during their colony days, and it simply meant born as a subject.

By restricting Presidents to NBC, they rejected naturalized citizens from the presidency. There were only two categories: Natural born or naturalized. Still are only two.


106 posted on 08/12/2020 7:36:21 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | 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