Posted on 02/12/2010 12:35:44 PM PST by syc1959
Excellent point.
John Bingham:
1) He was speaking almost 80 years after the Constitution was framed, so he hardly stands as any kind of authority on the original meaning of Article II.
2) He was only responsible for writing the second sentence (i.e. the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses) of the 14th Amendment. He did not write the first sentence (the Citizenship Clause). That was an amendment added by the Senate.
So...only people born overseas of U.S. citizen parents are natural-born citizens? Kind of bites for people born here, doesn't it?
Se #221, 222 and 215
That law did not define “natural born citizen” it extended (briefly) the label to children of citizens born overseas. It had no relevance to children born on US soil.
Parents is plural because children is plural. It’s simple English and does not require any single child to have two parents as citizens.
Lamest argument I ever read....nice try.
Again, twisting the truth away.....
“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” —Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823
So when the United States Constitution amended and ratified to allow ‘native’ citizens eligible for the Presidency.
Hint; as close to 2004, the Natural Citizen Child Act was not passed.
I’ll give to teh answer - NEVER.
Can’t help it. Your argument is with the English language, not with me.
"That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
Clearly Obama's father doesn't pass the test as written by the founding fathers.
Cite please?
You are wrong, it does define Natural Born Citizen as being a citizen born to two US citizens no matter where they were born.
By extending it to beyond our shores they actually included those born with in our borders.
No, it's that you refuse to except the fact that you are wrong, I can read just find.
More importantly I can comprehend it which is evidently something you're lacking.
Adams (1787):
"with the other volumes. In the afternoon I took up Vattels’ law of nature and of nations. Emmerich de Vattel, Le droit des gens; ou, principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations ... "
http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=ADMS-search-1&mode=TOC
Interesting that Adams had no problem reading French and translating "naturelle" into "nature..."
And, please note the date of 1787... Hmmm.. When was the U.S. Constitution ratified again?
Cheers
Can't type worth a damn though!
Different words, different contexts, different translation. See how that works?
That’s why machine translations suck and genuine bilingual human experts are needed. It’s the difference between literal and idiomatic.
Again.... not a single professional translation of de Vattel into English in 250 years has ever translated “naturels” in de Vattel to anything other than “natives.”
Coincidence? I think not.
Note this part of SR511;
“Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President”
What other candidates were ‘BORN’ overseas?
How about one that has sealed all his documents and can’t produce a valid/legal/legitimate United States birth certificate issued by ‘ANY’ state
No. It does not.
Unless of course you believe that only people born overseas can be natural born citizens.
Then at least you would be consistent.
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.