Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: STE=Q; All

“Why does this guy ignore the U.S. law of the early 20th century which goes a long way toward defining what is - and is not - a “natural born citizen?” Without that law, those like John McCain who were born outside our borders but in U.S. possessions would also not qualify to be President.”

I’m not taking a side on this issue. However, I do believe you did not read his article and understand his argument.

It boils down to the concept that neither law nor courts can change the constitution....only ammendments. The original meaning of the constitution stands until ammended.

In his view/understanding only the FATHER of the child mattered and NOT where the child was born. The child of a CITIZEN FATHER would be natural born regardless of where born. The MOTHER (in context of the 18th Century) cannot confer natural born status. Thus, John McCain being the sone of a citizen father is natural born and Barrack Obama being the son of a non-citizen is not. The mother’s citizenship has no bearing.

I do not know if he is correct, but I would guess that a court wouldn’t buy it because when women became full citizens, then some would infer that they now have the power to confer natural born status on their offspring.

His arguments only work under his original presumption that only ammendments to the constitution can change its meaning....and in his thinking the meaning would have veen clear to someone living in the late 18th Century....only the father mattered.


7 posted on 11/04/2010 8:37:36 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Sola Veritas

“It boils down to the concept that neither law nor courts can change the constitution....only ammendments. The original meaning of the constitution stands until ammended.”


See post #5

I wrote: “...he draws a distinction between “Natural Law” (”creator” endowed) and Positive Law (man Made)”

“Natural Law” (”creator” endowed) is — unalienable — and supersedes Positive Law (man Made)which IS alienable!

I do not see how even an amendment can remove a NATURAL —unalienable — right... a right based on natural law.

PS; I use the phrase “a right based on natural law” in the sense that a “Natural Born Citizen” has the “natural right” to run for President Of The United States — providing he meets the other requirements of age etc.

STE=Q


9 posted on 11/04/2010 9:16:39 PM PDT by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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