Check out article and comments.
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.
Thanks,LnL,
missed this earlier.
One injustice given light; now let’s move onto anchor babies and the fallacy there.
This article sent to those on email list.
I guess you don’t understand that Barack Obama was born in Canada and never even naturalized. When he was a US Senator he was handed a ceremonial passport for official travel on the basis of A) nothing and B) black African so PC. Someone DIED hiding this info in the Passport office.
Ask yourself if any other president or candidate would have been certified as a citizen ( screw ‘natural born’ at this point) if he hadn’t been one, ever?
Who cares about the nuances of natural born citizenship. I care that he’s thirty-five years old. How can he prove that he is without a valid birth certificate? A pdf won’t do. No birth certificate means no proof of age and thus ineligible.
The citizenship status of wives was irrelevant. Under the law at that time, women automatically were made citizens if they married an American Citizen male.
‘Actually, McCain was NOT born in a hospital in the Canal Zone. He was born in a hospital located in Panama itself because the hospital in the zone was over-crowded with patients and had no room. . . which is part of the reason why the US Senate decided to enter a resolution instead of just allowing the established law stand.
So I assume you think the same the same applies today - citizenship of the mother is irrelevant?
Check out article and comments.
You fall into a trap of your own making here.
Natural law isn't positive law and is precedent.(adj) as well.
Many do the same with USC 8. Positive law, not natural law.
Uniform rule of naturalization - Article I, section 8, clause 4
No shortages of overt and covert Obama supporters who fully agree, even here on FR!
Amazing how many people here at the home of Constitutional conservatism would throw away the protections of the natural born citizen clause just so their ineligible candidate can run.
Enemies of the United States stir up trouble in Panama.
No matter what McCain does or doesn't do about it becomes a political football.
No one can effectively govern under those circumstances.
That ONE position, the Office of the President, simply must be free of any hint of foreign allegiance.
Agree with this.
Just, I keep in mind that at the time it was written, there were no ‘naturalized citizens’ as Congress had not yet developed the Laws guiding the process.
My position is simple. The constitutional requirements set in place in 1787 continue to be requirements until they are amended. Changing the meaning of constitutional requirements by redefining words is not permitted.
If you want the requirements to be different, Amend the constitution.
And you’re dredging this up again because...?
Because the Constitution was brilliantly created document and should be revered and preserved.
Natural born citizen has a meaning, same as it was when the Constitution was adopted.
Naturally a citizen because they could not possibly be anything else, born here of citizen parents.
People born with multiple nationalities are exactly who the founders were excluding with that phrase.
They are not naturally Americans.
And where did it define natural-born citizen?
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.