Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Spaulding; xzins; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; 1000 silverlings; HarleyD; wmfights; Forest Keeper; ...
While laws can't change the constitution, Title 8 does not refer to "natural born citizens." It refers to "Citzens of the United States at birth." The two are not equal. If one follows your assertion to its implications, anchor babies are natural born citizens. The reasoning, well explained in Law of Nations, for insisting on natural born citizenship for only the president and his backup is the presumption that allegiance is passed to the children from the parents. Obama is a poster boy for why that is important. Obama's supposed dad was a Muslim Marxist whose goal was the overthrow of the young Christian democracy in Kenya for alignment with the USSR and Cuba.

"Citizen at Birth" means exactly what it says. That is a law. But being natural born cannot be granted by law. It is what the Law of Nations said it was: born on the soil and of parents who are its citizens. Citzens have all sorts of rights. Only natural born citizens can be president. Most citizens are natural born citizens. Obama may or may not be a citizen. Jindal is, but isn't natural born because his parents weren't when he was born. McCain can't be made natural born by law - which seems unfair, but was put in the constitution for our safety as a nation.

I agree. Natural born citizen is not the same as citizen at birth and the requirements are more stringent for the reasons you cited. Both parents must be citizens.

Has there ever been a President whose father or mother was not a citizen, outside of the first generation who were born in England? No.

120 posted on 08/01/2009 11:47:16 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: Dr. Eckleburg

That is refreshing. Thanks! Some of the obfuscators are very clever; some appear to be lawyers - but how would I know? I do believe that the great justices, and great thinkers, are clear and concise. John Marshall’s opinions are crystalline. Vattel, while Law of Nations has daunting scope, shows that brevity and clarity in Chapter 19, all that I’ve read carefully. The references thrown out, Sarah Duggin, Gabriel Chin, Sarah Herlihy, are, in my opinion, intended to overwhelm. The references also assiduously avoid the jus sanguinis, or born of citizen parents issue. (I have not read all of the Duggin-Collins paper in detail, it is very long, but a search reveals that nowhere does it even mention Vattel or The Venus)


125 posted on 08/02/2009 2:22:30 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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