Posted on 07/25/2012 6:07:09 PM PDT by TexasVoter
Anwar al-Awlaki was born in 1971 to Yemeni citizens in Las Cruces, New Mexico. US Intelligence reports that, from the age of seven, al-Awlaki was raised abroad, becoming an enemy of America, indoctrinated by the highest powers of Al-Qaida and studying under the same teachers as Osama bin Laden. He eventually influenced various terrorists such as the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, and helped plan the thwarted attack of the "Underwear Bomber," Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Al-Awlaki's phone number was found among the contact information of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the man known as "the 20th hijacker" in the 9/11 attacks.
Those who suggest that there is no distinction between "citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen" would have us believe and accept that such a person might have been eligible to run for President of the US simply because he was born in America. According to defenders of the alleged eligibility of Barack Obama (or Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal), any person born on US soil to one or more alien citizens could be the leader of the free world. At some point, according to that path of logic, this should have included Anwar al-Awlaki.
So, to say that every child born in America is a natural born citizen is also to say that any foreign interest whose child was born in the US could be allowed to raise that child abroad as an enemy of the US and return that child to this country in time to meet the Constitution's 14-year residency requirement for President.
(Excerpt) Read more at art2superpac.com ...
This explains clearly why there is and ought to be a distinction between "citizen" and "natural born Citizen."
Yes it does!
Couldn’t be any worse than the current guy.
Article 2 says:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
No person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President.
For the Adoption of the Constitution generation: "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..."
Mere citizens were permitted the presidency at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Afterwards, they had to be a particular type of citizen: a "natural born citizen"
Mere citizens are not eligible.
This is a silly argument, there is absolutely no reason to dump Awlaki with Jindhal or Rubio. There are plenty of loathsome human beings who were born here of 2 US citizen parents, should Timothy Mcveigh be eligible to run for President? How about the Batman shooter? Its a nonesensical argument. Awlaki could not run for President because he committed high treason agaisnt the US, not because he doesn’t meet a madeup definition of Natural Born Citizen.
Further to that, he’s dead.
Given how things have transpired, that Idea is no longer functional, but when it started, voting was limited to property owning taxpayers, and therefore were much more likely to exercise GOOD judgement.
“Awlaki could not run for President because he committed high treason agaisnt the US”
The point of the editorial is that, in the minds of some, al-Awlaki should have been eligible for POTUS at some point before he started his criminal ventures. Being raised in a foreign culture by parents who were foreigners, if had he chosen a path of politics rather than a more overt type of criminality, he could have been on a path to the White House.
Because we live in a free society where citizenship has its benefits, we can’t prevent the Timothy Mcveighs of the world from their acts of menace. However, by folllowing the course the Framers set for us, we can restrict our risk to a domestic environemnt simply by adhereing to a strict definition of the natural born Citizen clause.
You are correct my friend. See my tagline.
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.