Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

I was just summarizing what I heard/read. Some of those statements come from people claiming to be lawyers or researchers. Like I said, I don’t know and was throwing it out there for a response.


285 posted on 07/21/2013 2:39:14 PM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies ]


To: 3Fingas

I know. I was serious. The lack of emotion was refreshing.


286 posted on 07/21/2013 2:40:12 PM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies ]

To: 3Fingas
Ask yourself:

If being an American citizen was enough then why did congress have to pass a LEGALLY INVALID bill for John McCain back in 2008 to try and make him eligible?

Why? He's an American citizen. Nobody disputes that. Why did they have to go out of their way to try and give him a something he already "presumably" has? (We know why they ignored Obama). But why McCain? Why? Because they were trying to give him and THEMSELVES a legal fig leaf.

Why is there only ONE position in the entire Constitution the REQUIRES the occupant to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN if American citizenship is enough?

Why? Why did the framers single the presidency out for such a rigorous standard?

Why have there been numerous (at least 4 maybe more - my recollection) FAILED attempts from congress to ERRONEOUSLY define NBC? Why have all attempts failed? Because THE PEOPLE didn't want them and they are Constitutionally invalid not only as a process but in definition.

The most recent failed attempt:

Sen.Don Nickles attempted in 2004 to alter the term NBC and it failed. See #1 and #2 below. It failed because the people don't want it. They understand what the Founding Fathers intended.

“They ought to have the same rights,” said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma who in 2004 introduced legislation that would have established that children born abroad to American citizens could harbor presidential ambitions without a legal cloud over their hopes. “There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what ‘natural-born citizen’ means.”

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s2128

S. 2128 (108th): Natural Born Citizen Act

108th Congress, 2003–2004

A bill to define the term "natural born Citizen" as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

Introduced:
Feb 25, 2004
Sponsor:
Sen. Don Nickles [R-OK]
Status:
Died (Introduced)

2/25/2004--Introduced.

Natural Born Citizen Act - Defines the constitutional term "natural born citizen," to establish eligibility for the Office of President, as:

(1) any person born in, and subject to the jurisdiction of, the United States; and

(2) any person born outside the United States who derives citizenship at birth from U.S. citizen parents, or who is adopted by the age of 18 by U.S. citizen parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship.

318 posted on 07/21/2013 3:50:20 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson