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

To: arrogantsob
BTW nothing in the Constitution references the definition of natural born citizenship.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The meaning of “natural born” was commonly understood when the Constitution was written. If the word “blue” had been written into the Constitution would you also want a definition of the exactness found in a graduate level physics book also included?

If our Founding Fathers were to have written the Constitution to the exactness that you expect regarding “natural born” and every other word, term, phrase, and sentence, the Constitution would be the size of our IRS code.

Ultimately, our success as a republic does not and will not depend on “definitions” in the Constitution or any other law. We, as a society, can NOT write enough laws or define them precisely enough to corral evil. Evil will find a way to leak through the most carefully crafted laws.

Whether or not our experiment in self-rule succeeds depends upon our **HONOR**, character, honesty, and ( ultimately) fear of the Lord.

Obama and his minions are not honorable.

An honest man would have been HONORED to promptly provide **all** documentation regarding his natural born status.

An honest man would have been **HONORED** to immediately prove to the troops in his command, and to the American people, that he is indeed qualified under the Constitution to be the president and the Commander in Chief.

63 posted on 10/02/2009 4:36:33 PM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: wintertime

There ya go, Barry isn’t an “honest man”.


68 posted on 10/02/2009 4:38:33 PM PDT by machogirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: wintertime

Should you carefully read the Constitutional requirements wrt the Presidency you will note that they allowed those NOT natural born citizens to become president. Those who came into the country 14 years or more BEFORE the ratification were also eligible. Only after that generation died out did the “natural born requirement” become operative. Alexander Hamilton was eligible under the phrasing discussed and he was a member of the Committee on Style at the Convention which determined the wording of the document.

“Blue” has nothing to do with this issue and I merely pointed out that it is incorrect to believe that there was any definition within the Constitution defining the phrase “natural born”. Nor within the most definitive commentary the Federalist Papers mainly the work of Hamilton.

I certainly have no argument with you regarding the dishonorable nature of Urkle and his followers but it has been that way for two hundred years the length of time the Dmeocrat Party has existed.


73 posted on 10/02/2009 4:47:01 PM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: wintertime

Thanks Wintertime. ArrogantSOB seems to hold a quasi-lawyerly contrarian view in just about every reply on this thread. It’s frustrating because I don’t know whether to read his/her replies as serious arguments or simply as a troll trying to incite us.

Your common sense reply is a refreshing read.


104 posted on 10/02/2009 7:15:06 PM PDT by Two Kids' Dad (((( I am a proud citizen of GlennBeckistan. ))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: wintertime

“An honest man would have been HONORED to promptly provide **all** documentation regarding his natural born status.”

You got that right. We have a president who has no respect for the citizen. In due time it will become obvious to a majority.


227 posted on 10/03/2009 9:51:15 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | 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