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

Skip to comments.

Qualifications for President and the “Natural-Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
Congressional Research service ^ | 11/14/2011 | Jack Maskell

Posted on 11/30/2011 4:54:22 AM PST by Natufian

The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a "resident within the United States" for 14 years, and a "natural born Citizen"

(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Miscellaneous; Reference
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; drconspiracyblows; eligibility; fogblow; fogbow; fraud; ineligibleobama; ineligibleromney; justia; naturalborncitizen; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-255 last
To: DiogenesLamp

And as I have pointed out to you, that is NOT what Vattel wrote. The phrase ‘les sujets naturels’ does not appear in Vattel.

That PHRASE, however, is translated “natural born subject” for the English, or NBC for Americans - showing that NBC = NBS. And since we all know that NBS includes those born to alien parents, and NBS = NBC...


241 posted on 12/06/2011 7:49:35 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I should add that natural born subject was a very well known and established legal phrase. In the WKA decision, the Supreme Court gives a lengthy review of it and says, as you do, that NBS = NBC.

In fact, they say:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

242 posted on 12/06/2011 8:06:53 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Chief Justice Fuller:
.

Book I, c.19, § 212.

“The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. . . .

The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.”

Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers,”


243 posted on 12/06/2011 4:21:45 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Chief Justice Waite:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.


244 posted on 12/06/2011 4:26:16 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Justice Harland:

Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.

The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.


245 posted on 12/06/2011 4:32:33 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Justice Nathan Clifford

Justice Noah Swayne

Justice Samuel Miller

Justice David Davis

Justice Stephen Field

Justice William Strong

Justice Joseph Bradley

Justice Ward Hunt

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.


246 posted on 12/06/2011 4:40:38 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Need to change Justice Harlan to Justice Daniel.


247 posted on 12/06/2011 4:49:52 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The gentleman says that it is unfortunate in another point of view: it means to prohibit the introduction of white people from Europe, as this tax may deter them from coming amongst us.

A little impartiality and attention will discover the care that the Convention took in selecting their language. The words are, “the migration or importation of such persons, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation.”

It is observable here that the term migration is dropped, when a tax or duty is mentioned, so that Congress have power to impose the tax only on those imported.

‘it means to prohibit the introduction of white people from Europe, as this tax may deter them from coming amongst us.’

The debates on the adoption of the Constitution.


248 posted on 12/06/2011 8:54:55 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo; LucyT

Every civics text produced so far supports the ‘born in the US’ argument with no mention of parentage.
_________________________
Cool! That means that any America hater terrorist(like the ones that flew on 9/11) can come here, have kids, their kids are natural born citizens and they can run for President. Same goes for kids of illegal aliens. Cross the border, pop out a kid, La Raza can groom him for President. I’m sure that is just what the founders intended when they used the term “natural born” for the President but nowhere else.


249 posted on 03/06/2012 9:34:17 AM PST by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

You mining posting history again?

The South lost the war. Get over it.


250 posted on 03/06/2012 11:02:46 AM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo; LucyT; Brown Deer; Las Vegas Ron; manc; Fred Nerks

The South lost the war? LOL! Where did that come from? were we discussing that? Speaking of CW threads, what happened to your pals Non-Sequitur & Trumandogz. Where dey be at?

Mining posting history????? Is that what you call checking someones past posts? If you don’t like them being seen, ask JR to fix FR so that past posts can’t be viewed, until then, FReepers will continue to check past posts, that’s how many trolls are busted, but you know that don’t you?

Why don’t YOU take a stroll down memory lane and check your posts on FR back to 9/2008 just for sh*ts and giggles. It seems you are a bit, can we say, obsessed with the BC. Since you strongly believe Barry the Marxist is legit, why waste FOUR years defending the O bashing and alienating other Freepers about something you think is stupid? That makes no sense unless you have no life, have OCD or are an Obot.

Now run along, check all your posts from now back to 9/2008 and it will be blatantly obvious to you and anyone else that does the same that you have a little OCD problem with the BC.


251 posted on 03/06/2012 12:08:02 PM PST by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

You are a funny little man.


252 posted on 03/06/2012 12:57:55 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

Not so little here, but I’ll bet you are.


253 posted on 03/06/2012 1:42:38 PM PST by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

HUH what are you on about , the war for southern independence , what on earth has that got to do with this thread?


254 posted on 03/06/2012 2:20:30 PM PST by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman,It's not a conservative view but a true American view)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
Not so little here, but I’ll bet you are.

I agree with that and he also has a little brain.

Short, heavy, and gray-haired, El Sordo (Spanish for “the deaf one”) is a man of few words.
255 posted on 03/06/2012 4:44:43 PM PST by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-255 last

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.

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