It reduces the argument to the absurd yes, because the argument itself is absurd.
U.S. law and citizenship is not determined governed arbitrated or amended by the laws of any other nation.
Go troll someone else.
“U.S. law and citizenship is not determined governed arbitrated or amended by the laws of any other nation.”
I am glad to see you caught on to that. It is one of the reasons NBC means Born to two citizen Parents and born upon the soil of their nation. Thats OUR law. Obama broke it.
Then he broke the constitution by taking an oath to the document he was breaking by taking it.
Lovely, golly, wonder why Obama thinks he can do any damn thing he likes including unconstitutional health care legislation, illegal bans on Oil drilling, using the EPA to do an end run around congress which has sole legal right to write the laws the EPA is supposed to enforce, not write for itself... Yea, exactly. Obama and his ilk have been looking for a way to get the constitution out of the way for over a hundred years. He knows he isn’t a constitutional POTUS.
It was deliberate. It was no accident.
How intact and sovereign is our Constitution now ?
How important is it to you that the documented essential elements therein remain intact and the law of the land, as created and clearly intended by the Founders in their time?
Their vision and brilliance is not diminished by time. Rather, time has but added layers of rich patina to this miracle of mission.
There have been regular efforts by Democrats over the years to weaken and alter the Founders’ obvious intent, created for sensible and serious purposes that matter to this day, by submitting bills to allow foreign born individuals to become POTUS/CIC.
I fear it won’t be very long before these putrid subversives of our Constitution will soon be successful in watering down that intent, in this volatile, polluted and polarized climate and the citizenry lacking the will and the courageous resistance to fight for truth. Lord, protect and save America.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thomas Jefferson’s draft in 1776 of a new constitution for Virginia included the provision regarding immigrants:
“All persons who...propose to reside...and who shall subscribe the fundamental laws, shall be considered as residents and entitled to all the rights of persons natural born.”[3]
On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government.
Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton’s plan provided:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”[4]
[edit] John Jay
Another possible source of the clause is a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention. Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
________________________________________
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT
MONDAY, JULY 24, 2000
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:45 p.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Charles T. Canady [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Charles T. Canady, Spencer Bachus, Bob Barr, Melvin L. Watt and Barney Frank.
Page 7
Staff present: Cathleen Cleaver, chief counsel; Jonathan A. Vogel, counsel; Paul B. Taylor, counsel; Susana Gutierrez, clerk; and Anthony Foxx, minority counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CANADY
Mr. CANADY. The subcommittee will be in order. The subcommittee meets now to conduct a hearing on H.J.Res. 88, which proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the office of the President a person who has been the United States citizen for 20 years.
This amendment, which was introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts Mr. Frank would change the portion of the Presidential qualifications clause in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the United States Constitution that limits eligibility for the Presidency of the United States to natural-born citizens.
[H.J.Res. 88 follows:]
106TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. J. RES. 88
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for twenty years.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 29, 2000
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for twenty years.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
‘’Article —
‘’A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for twenty years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.’’
Mr. CANADY. As we will hear in today’s testimony, the drafters of the Constitution left little written record of the purpose of the natural-born citizen requirement.
Historians trace the origin of the phrase to a letter written by John Jay to George Washington during the Convention’s deliberations in 1787. Jay, who would become an author the Federalist Papers and would later be appointed the first Chief Justice of the United States, recommended that the drafters provide, and I quote, a strong check, closed quote, against the admission of foreigners into the Government and expressly require that the Commander in Chief be a natural-born citizen.
Some sources suggest that Jay was responding to a rumor that the Convention was secretly designing a monarchy to be ruled by a foreign monarch, but Jay’s warning can also be seen simply as a reflection of the widely held fear of foreign influence in this new country’s elections and of a general distrust of executive power at that time.
Page 9
Many view these considerations as equally relevant today.
The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations.
In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation.
Supporters of the measure, however, argue that the limitation is no longer warranted. They assert that distinguishing natural-born from naturalized citizens has no relevance in determining who might be subject to actual foreign influence.
Unlike natural-born citizens, naturalized citizens have made an express commitment to embrace this Nation’s principles. The many naturalized citizens have indeed served this country with great honor and distinction.
Moreover, supporters of the amendment regard eligibility for the Presidency as a civil right with strong symbolic importance and assert that the principle of equality is not served unless every citizen has the opportunity to reach the Nation’s highest office.
I want to thank the witnesses for being with us here to discuss this matter. I look forward to their testimony.
Now I will recognize the author of this proposed Constitutional amendment Mr. Frank.
Page 10
Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving us this hearing. The gentleman who suggested the amendment to me, Mr. Raimundo Delgado, is here and will be testifying.
I bring it forward for a very simple reason: It does not seem to me that there ought to be as a general principle any barriers to treating people who choose to come here and become Americans differently than people who were born here. I am also am a great believer in democracy virtually untrammeled.
Now, on the first point, we have had in recent years some legislation which seems to me unfortunately to reflect some animus toward immigrants. I think the reaction to that nationally has been a good one, and we are in the process of unwinding some of that. But the essential premise of this constitutional provision is that there is some reason to distrust the complete patriotism of people who were born elsewhere, and I have not found that to be the case as a general rule.
*snip*
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0f.htm