All of this is *so* 2007.
/s
Go Cruz.
Dump Trump.
What difference at this point does it make?
Pffft, original intent? Who needs that when you can have a Canadian-Cuban President. He can feed us moros y cristianos with shredded bacon bits and Canadian beer. It’ll be great!
If we accept anything less than original intent then it means that a Beirut-born individual with US citizenship and perhaps his foreign national parent (turned US citizen) with one parent citizen at birth could obtain the presidency. I see a problem ahead in light of how fast and easy immigration has been managed this last decade or so.
We are not confusing anything. There are only two categories of citizen.
natural born and naturalized.
Enough with the ridiculous, ‘Hillary Clinton’ birther nonsense.
The first claim is not relevant.
This change would allow naturalized citizens to run for President in addition to natural citizens.
“January 14, 1975 - Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution - “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”
Ditto.
Just another proposal to allow naturalized citizens to run if they have been a citizen for 35 years.
“June 11, 2003 - Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress - “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”
Same for the third claim.
Just another attempt to allow naturalized citizens to run.
This time with only a 20 year requirement.
“September 3, 2003 - Democrat Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: - “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.”
As far as I’m concerned if you don’t care about the difference then you’re not a patriot.
This is a misquoting of Vattel.
“They knew from reading Vattel that a “natural born citizen” had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents (Vattel, Section 212 in original French and English translation).”
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-difference-between-a-us-citizen-and-a-natural-born-citizen#ixzz3wwYkFO92
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Can we take seriously any article that used the infamous Dred Scott decision as one of its cases?
..... {Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)}
We all know that Dred Scott was wrongly decided by a democrat controlled Supreme Court.
This was a court case that helped start the United States Civil war.
Toss this article in the trash can where it belongs !!!
IT IS RUBBISH.
“That is the definition of a “natural born citizen,” as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions (The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more) and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401.”
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-difference-between-a-us-citizen-and-a-natural-born-citizen#ixzz3wwYwcB2G
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
The original intent is to prevent people having foreign allegiance from being president.
What extremely weak reasoning we have here.
... England was a monarchy.
... The United States is a constitutional republic.
... Therefore the English Common Law definition does not apply.
SERIOUSLY?!!
The author is an idiot.
No, that is too kind.
The author is a complete, total, dithering moron.
What a stupid line of reasoning. Now wonder they did not bother to include any of these stupid claims.
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-difference-between-a-us-citizen-and-a-natural-born-citizen#ixzz3wwZfSS79
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
“There are historical arguments too numerous to include in a short article, which explain why the definition of “natural born subject,” as found in the English Common Law, was not used as the basis of “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution because Great Britain was a monarchy and the new nation was a constitutional republic.”
Indeed so.
Legal precedent and interpretation LEAVE NO DOUBT.
This article is full of crap.
Oh geez. The idiot has come back to the infamous Dred Scott decision as his reason.
He should post this over at the Democrat Underground.
The morons over there might buy this unmitigated crap.
That is like taking one line from Vattel and ignoring the rest of the discussion on citizens.
COMPLETE...
UTTER...
RUBBISH...
“Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Much of our law is based on English Common Law.
What did the English say on the subject?
Children born out of the country to citizens are natural born.
This interpretation, by the way, is in agreement with Vattel.
For example, consider the British Foreign Protestants Naturalization Act 1708:
The children of all natural born subjects born out of the ligeance [i.e. out of England] of Her Majesty Her Heirs and Successors shall be deemed and adjudged to be natural born subjects of this Kingdom to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.[7][8]”
Unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Antecedents_in_England
The same article also cites Blackstone.
So at the time of the United States constitution, there was no doubt that children born abroad to citizens are natural born.
Geez.
But by several more modern statutes ... all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”
The Bingham article cited, was from congressional discussion in 1862.
What was happening in 1862?
Anybody?
That’s right.
He was arguing that black men and women born in this country were citizens of the United States, just as much as were the white men and women.
The full text can be read here.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680