[Mobile Vulgus]

Well, this isn't the favorite position to take on THIS site, for sure. But, it has well reasoned points to make that I don;t think we should forget about so fast.

[ethical]

NA. I’m not buying it. The will of the people should not trump the Constitution unless it goes through the Constitutional Amendment process. And if the will of the people trumps the rule of law then we have anarchy and I don’t like anarchy.

[Political Junkie Too]

Did Jefferson say anything about General Motors, too?

-PJ

[TomasUSMC]

Obambi is a homosexual cocaine freaking murdering baby killing muslem lovin scumbag. Other than that, he would make a great................................................................................................................................................................................................ Community Organizer.

[Doohickey]

The road to socialism is paved with “intents”.

Personally, I don’t care what Jefferson or anyone else intended. I do care what they wrote, as in a plain reading of the U.S. Constitution. Intent is for sale; it gave us Kelo and Roe and an imperial Federal government, amonst other things.

[America2012]

The simple reason that the founders wanted the president to be a natural born citizen was because they were keen students of history. The phrase "let history be our guide" was not just a trope. The founders knew well the many instances when a foreign ruler had entered a country and, using that country's own laws and customs, immorally proclaimed himself the ruler of a subjugated nation. The founders wanted to prevent that possibility and also wanted to make sure that there were no divided loyalties in an American president, that the welfare of the USA would be first and foremost in the mind of anyone elected to that office. What better way than to preclude the foreign born?

The "natural born" provision is designed to protect us, even today. Since the adoption of the Constitution, history has shown what happens when a "foreign born" or dual-loyalty citizen takes over a country;

A Corsican named Napoleon Bonaparte took over France and led that country into ruin and political chaos.

A Austrian named Adolf Hitler took over Germany and led that country and the world into a war which led to the deaths of millions, totally destroyed Germany and left it divided for 45 years.

So it's obvious what happens when a "foreign born" citizen takes over a country and if Jefferson saw the last 200 years of history, he'd change his mind and support the "natural born" provision because it prevents another "Napoleon Bonaparte" or "Adolf Hitler" from ever coming to power, at least in the United States.

[John S Mosby]

The will of the people of Jefferson’s day was reflected in the wording of the Constitution. They did not want anyone with foreign ties to be President. Period. Fear of the mob did not ever guide our new nation. About which see: The Whiskey Rebellion. Please tell us how ignoring the Constitution out of fear of mob response is any different than Mexico allowing Maximillian to take over?

[American_Centurion]

In grand FR fashion, without reading the entire article (redundant eh?). I will have to surmise that if TJ would believe as you claim, that it is because he would be polishing his tools with which he would soon water the tree of liberty.

[savedbygrace]

Huston sure used up a lot of unnecessary words to say, “The people voted and Obama won, so let’s move on.”

It’s a silly argument. Fraud vitiates all contracts, and fraud vitiates elections. Is he saying he’s in favor of allowing all cases of election fraud to go unexamined, simply because the people voted and one candidate won, so let’s move on?

Yup, it’s a silly argument.

[TigersEye]

(... and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved),...

What are we to make of these words then?

Take it to court, obviously.

[Uncle Chip]

Well. I am sure that this is going to anger some of you. But, I have to say it anyway…

No. What you meant to say was:

"I am sure that this is going to make me look stupid, but I have to say it anyway..."

It does.

[Publius6961]

But, it has well reasoned points to make that I don;t think we should forget about so fast.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine, and I couldn't disagree more.

This is a diatribe on the secondary importance of Constitution. And a mysterious, totally subjective "first principle."
I reject both in total, without qualifications. The very essence (and definition) of a Constitutional Representative Republic clearly screams otherwise.

This classic exercise in sophistry and fuzzy thinking is one of the best arguments I have ever seen to re-examine the genius of the founding fathers. After all, our Constitution took 17 years to be accepted and formalized, and that time was not spent in eating donuts, bombastic promises and creation of carefully crafted, but meaningless sound bites.

Our Constitution had but one major flaw, exacerbated by the 17th Amendment. The founders never envisioned that some states would become so populous as to skew the Constitutional democratic intent so fatally; hence the original expressed intent of the nature of the Senate.

Pure Democracy can't work beyond a certain population, because it then becomes indistinguishable from mobocracy.

The Constitution should have limited states to a maximum size, as well as providing that the notion of what is the will of the people is limited to a member state. I can't imagine the ethics and morals of, say, New Jersey to be imposed on Nebraska or Kansas. Or vice-versa. Or, on the micro level, that a large community of criminals (Mass. & NJ come to mind) would criminalize standards, honesty and ethics.

When a state exceeds a certain size, it should divide into separate parts (as often as necessary) with corresponding Representatives and members of the Senate as originally defined.

There is an original intent that rises above the Constitution itself. ...nearly every member of the founding generation placed a particular emphasis upon the locus of power in the governing philosophy of the American system and...
That locus was in the will of the people.

Then why bother having a Constitution? If "most" saw it thusly why was it not clearly expressed? Perhaps because even those original framers, for 17 years, saw the fatal flaw in the concept, n'est-ce pas?

[lacrew]

Uh...divided loyalties? Opening campaigning in a Kenyan election? Having close relatives in high office in Kenya? Having close relatives in Indonesia and Japan?

If the civil war in Somalia bled over into Kenya, would Obama’s response be clouded by his divided loyalties?

This is exactly what the original intent aimed to prevent.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for your support of Just Move On. Now, Felipe de Jesus CALDERON Hinojosa & Schwarzenegger can run for US el presidente in 2112! They can run the pro Gay/Green Governator with the Presidente of Mexico for co el Presidentes of the 57 states.

With the voters in Mexico, South America, Canada, Europe, Iran and "new voters" in the Former USA, the Governator can be co presidente with the Mexican Presidente for life.

They will win by 200 million votes, and that settles that. No one will challenge either one including a lot of Freepers as they will fear riots if the constitution is considered. Just Move on to 2040.

[Red Steel]

So what is with you people? You can't stand the idea that someone pursuing Obama because he could be foreign born, or you do accept the idea that someone born with dual citizenship can be a U.S. president that would violate the natural born citizen clause? Or you don't believe in multi-tasking, walking and chewing gun at the same time?

"...But, it has well reasoned points to make that I don;t think we should forget about so fast."

He hasn't reasoned nothing of the kind. Huston thinks elections results would superseded the Constitution. His interpretation of statements do not support his claim, and they border almost on the absurd. His claims are nonsense.

[6323cd]

One of the rare voices of reason on this (bogus) topic here.... Thanks for posting.

[luvadavi]

Thomas Jefferson traveled to France, lived in Paris to ob-serve the Revolution, which he had been thrilled to witness—from afar. When he saw the mayhem and wanton bloodshed, the people even killing their own (Robespierre, Danton)in total bloodlust, he changed his mind, was greatly saddened. He had seen mob rule up close and it wasn’t pretty.

[reasonisfaith]

“But those that voted for him did not have the slightest inkling that he may not be eligible when they cast their ballot”

Mr. Huston should consider this fact, a little more.