Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TigersEye

I think McCain was the exception that disproves the rule, in terms of natural birth. The circumstances of his birth could not have been expected by the founders (lived infant years in panama as part of a military occupation force of territory extracted from that country after we separated it from colombia), then elsewhere) in the natural birth clause.

I DO believe it was meant to exclude people with claim to US citizenship who had been born and raised abroad (read - england, france, etc) from returning and having any ability to run for president. Needless to say, the Chester Arthur issue says a lot on what Obama’s claim to natural born citizenship is, no matter where he was born, unless another father is on his bc.


63 posted on 05/14/2009 10:20:47 PM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: WoofDog123

The Founders were establishing a Republic, not an empire. They weren’t interested in having imperial families birthing children in far off satrapies coming back to rule a global empire...


64 posted on 05/14/2009 11:17:46 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: WoofDog123

The law is the law. It doesn’t matter what the Founders did or did not expect. Did you read the legal brief at the link?


65 posted on 05/14/2009 11:42:25 PM PDT by TigersEye (Cloward-Piven Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson