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

To: Walt Griffith
How could he have been either of those at that time the Constitution was adopted? Since neither his father nor he were alive at that time.

If you're asking if Ted were born back then would he have been considered a citizen in either form? The answer to that question would be no because he was not born in the U.S. Furthermore, at that time it would have been the citizenship status of the father that would have determined his citizenship, not the mother. Since his father was not a citizen, who on top of it was not present in the country, Ted most definitely would not been considered to be an American citizen, "natural born" or otherwise by virtue of his father.

Had Ted been born in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted he would have been recognized as a "natural born" citizen when and if his father actually became a citizen.

Only those first wave of children who were born in this country to non-citizens, at the time of their birth, and became of age to satisfy the age requirement for Presidency, would have enjoyed this consideration and been recognized as "natural born" citizens. After that period, only children born to fathers who were citizens were considered "natural born" citizens. Children of immigrants who had not obtained their citizenship at the time their child was born, became naturalized citizens when their father became a naturalized citizen. If the father had become a citizen before the birth of his child, then the child would have been considered to be a "natural born" citizen, and his father would still have been considered a naturalized citizen.

73 posted on 02/06/2016 12:13:53 PM PST by Robert DeLong (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]


To: Robert DeLong
You and I are much closer on what we believe than you might think. I do appreciate the thought you have put into this question. I am just getting ready to fall over into the 77th year. I have thought about this many times over the years, but this time I decided I needed to pursue it. I just ordered a historical book on citizenship that covers the early 1700's to the mid 1800's.

By the way when you read below you will see that I do not believe any of the current crop presidential candidates are "natural born Citizens". Thank you for tolerating me. Keep searching and don't spend much time answering those who do not even look at our great Constitution.

Article 2, Section 1 clause 4 has nothing to do with making citizens. It simply states what available citizens can be president of the new country. The phrase "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." gives the time frame when the specifics apply. These do not apply before or after Adoption of this Constitution.

It has to do with specific listing of the qualities recognized for a US President “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.”

1) “natural born Citizen” - Born in England or possibly born in the Colonies to English Parents

2) “Citizen” - One naturalized through any one of the 13 Colonies by there particular sets of laws.

3) “35 years of age” - 1787 - 35 = 1752 or earlier birth.

4) “resident of the colonies 14 years” or longer.
1787 - 14 - 1773 The person would have been in the colonies during the formative years of the new country.

35 - 14 = 21 years old in 1773, old enough to understood what had went on during those 14 years.

Feel free to post to me again, but unless you bring up something new we have not covered, I will not reply unless you ask me to, feel free to contact me any time, even privately if you care to. Walt

75 posted on 02/06/2016 4:33:35 PM PST by Walt Griffith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | 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