Posted on 10/05/2005 3:33:32 PM PDT by el_chupacabra
developing . . .
A foreign-born Speaker would not meet one of the constitutional criteria that must be met in order for a person to serve as President. Neither would a Speaker who is less than 35 years old, or one who has not resided in the US for fourteen years- (Art. II, Section 1)
It requires that all three criteria be met.
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.
Logically, if one of the criteria is not met, then the person is ineligible to serve as President.
One thing's absolutely certain-
It'd end up being ruled upon by the Men In Black.
There were NO spies in the Clinton White House.
The fact that he gave away the candy store obviated the need for them.
CA....
Old enough to know that when someone stubbornly defends a relatively unimportant issue by calling names, he's not old enough to play in the major leagues.
You avoid the crisis by preventing naturalized citizens from becoming SotH unless you want to invite a constitutional crisis.
If no one who was born in the US is qualified for the position, we have a bigger problem than a constitutional crisis ( for which the framers included solutions to remedy such a crisis ). If no American born was qualified for the position the spy was in, we have big problems.
I expect that these naturalized citizens are promoted to positions of trust more often than American born citizens because they are seen to have liaison value with their native countries but with that you have the inherent risks.
Why would there be any concern about Harriet among the thinking class? She has had a twenty year vetting by the President.
Now of course those who see problems under every bed and excell in Jumping to Unwarranted Conclusions are going to yammer mindlessly on.
Do you have any clue what forum you are posting on Newbie?
Why is place of birth a determing factor in hiring and placement? Is there a magical fairy that comes down and taps you on the head with the loyalty stick if you are born in the US?
Then your posts should reflect a knowledge of the Country you claim to be from. IF you think there is not an active Muslim insurgency operating in the Philippines, then I question your veracity. Do you remember Bataan?
Dude, three of my uncles died on Bataan or the prison camps - one US Army, 2 Philippine army.
Yes indeed I know about the insurgency. My brother in law was almost killed by a bomb planted in Davao airport two years ago.
This business has nothing to do with it.
"Obviously, your butt buddy Democrats friend's like Gore must have properly 'vetted' the spy, right?"
Do you have any clue what forum you are posting on Newbie?
Do you? I can tell you did read my post or comprehend my post.
I will dumb it down to a lower level for you.
Democrats like Richard Clarke can not critize Cheney for allowing a 'spy' on his staff without insulting the Clinton Administration as well.
Al Gore was the one who had him on this non-American born spy on his staff first and theoretically should have did a proper background check first.
Thanks so much for the answer! I thought at first it was from Richard III, but then I remembered that one was "This earth, this realm, this England."
P.S. Next time you won't have to read through the entire thread (unless you want to). Just click on "view replies." (Don't ask me how long I was here before I figured that one out!)
You sure you are picking on the right person here? Where did I ever disagree with any of this. Best I remember, all I asked was, is this guy a Muslim convert?
What a surprise. Another security failure in the Clinton administration.
There is more of a chance that a naturalized citizen will have loyalties elsewhere. They have a native country and an adopted country whereas an American born has just the native country and would need to adopt a country to spy for.
There is also a better chance that the immigrant brings with him from his native land ideas, beliefs or customs that are foreign to this land and those previously assimilated beliefs might conflict with his being loyal to his adopted country and instead identify with enemies of his adopted country.
It's amazing to me that someone would believe that the native and the naturalized citizen would have the same propensity toward disloyalty. If that is what you are asserting, please make your case.
As I understand it he is not a Muslim convert. He did it in the hope of a payoff. I.e., he was corrupt.
This one does not seem to have been a matter of conflicting loyalties but of simple corruption. He was working for what amounts to an organized crime syndicate.
Wen Ho Lee was something else.
You know, I don't think this guy would have ever shown up on any security sweep as he probably had no political connections, and his associate in the crime arrived in the US as a result of a Philippine political shakeup long after he was vetted.
I.e., he was most likely clean as clean can be right up to the moment someone detected his access of the files.
But GW Bush is guilty of unprecedented cronyism, uh huh.
I'm asserting that your litmus for loyalty is skewed. Being born within the borders of the US does not determine loyalty. Loyalty has more to do with your moral character, your upbringing and your trust and faith in democracy. Those ideals and beliefs are not bestowed by the geographical location of your birth.
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.