Posted on 06/10/2018 9:43:49 AM PDT by Lurkinanloomin
Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.
Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was overwhelmingly rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.. Therefore, the President of the United States must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.
Well done!
Article II eligibility.
Nicely laid out in this piece.
You must have enjoyed the Kenyanesian Usurpation to want it to happen again.
Thanks for posting this.
Articles notwithstanding.
Right. Because ‘Bruce Campbells Chin’s’ logic should supersede the wisdom of our founding fathers.
With a population which exceeds 300 million, certainly we can find a person to lead that is a natural born citizen with zero potential of conflicted allegiances.
Why is that so hard for so many to understand.
Or how nutty they are. The article is wrong, of course. It's reading meaning into things that don't have it, and where none is expressed.
meant to ping you to this excellent layout of Art II
Kamela Harris?
Her and Rubio, Jindal, Haley, Cruz and George P. Bush, who is probably the real reason the GOP went along with the Kenyanesian Usurpation.
Since everyone who was a citizen at the time of adoption is dead we can remove the grandfather clause wording. We are left with “No Person except a natural born Citizen [...] shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
Why does the Constitution speak of “citizens” and separately of “natural born citizens”? Why is the word “natural” inserted? It is a matter of allegiance.
A person can be a “citizen” if they were citizens or subjects in some other country first but have come here and met the naturalization requirements. Also, if one is the offspring of a citizen and a non-citizen, then one is a US citizen. However, in both these cases it can be argued that the person might choose allegiance to their former country or to the country of the foreign-born parent or at least the allegiance might be considered divided. That is, there is no natural allegiance of the offspring to one or the other parent’s country. It is this divided or alienated allegiance that the Constitutional provision is designed to prohibit.
If, however, both of one’s parents are themselves US citizens at the time of one's birth, then one is a “citizen” as well as a “natural born citizen”. The “natural born citizen” is one who at birth has no natural allegiance to any other country and the Framers felt could be trusted to be loyal to the US and not act as a foreign agent. In short, a natural born citizen is one who cannot be argued to be anything but; there is no possible argument that he might be a citizen elsewhere. [footnote: Also, in their time, the rules of royal succession held sway throught much of the world and the Founders wished to forstall any potential claims by the crowned heads of Europe or their scions to sovereignty in the US.]
Note that native born is not the same as natural born. Native born simply refers to the place of one’s birth, i.e., one’s nativity. The term does not speak to the legal circumstances of a birth, merely to its location.
I thought ruibio’s parents were US citizens when he was born.
The Supreme Court has addressed this issue before and has found for the Constitution as written. Due to the uneducated masses and the criminality of the Democrat party, Obama was elected in defiance to the Constitution. Thus wrong must be made right by the prosecution of Obama for ALL his crookedness and everyone involved in this affair.
The article is right of course. Your opinion does not hold water.
Not yet, they did become citizens later, but were Cuban nationals when he was born.
Precisely correct.
thanx i take that as good news.
I wonder if there is any way to deal with Kamela Harris’ status now instead of after Pelosi certifies her as a legitimate candidate/
That is the loophole that Obama exploited.
As long as Nancy Pelosi signs off no one else checks.
I wrote a letter to the secretary of state in Cal asking her to ask Obama for a birth certificate. She is was a democrat. I said since the media was full of speculation and charges, she could claer much of it up and let the election proceed with less of a cloud.
I got no response. I resigned from working at the polls in SD county and explained to the registrar of voters why I thought the election was tainted.
The secretaries of state have the power to require proof of eligibility not just the party certification. A few decades age toe Cal secretary of state required Eldridge Cleaver to present a birth certificate and disqualified him for being too young.
The courts have the power to review this issue because of the requirement in the constitution, bit they turned down 3 or 4 filing son Obama.
Somehow we have to bring this to the forefront before the dems run Harris.
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.