Posted on 04/29/2010 11:38:41 AM PDT by K-oneTexas
Were ANY of the Founding Fathers “natural born citizens” of the United States?
No… they were not. Not even one of the Founding Fathers was a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, even though some of them had indeed been (native) born on what would become U.S. soil.
None of them were “natural born citizens” because all of the Founding Fathers were born prior to the existence of the United States of America. No one could be the “natural born citizen” of a nation that did not yet exist.
America declared its independent status as a sovereign nation on July 4, 1776, breaking away from England and British rule. But the United States of America was not formed until September of 1787, with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The Founders had no choice but to exempt themselves from Article II—Section I—Clause V of the Constitution they wrote and ratified. But there would be no other exemptions or exceptions from that moment forward.
American citizens had better wake up and take action fast, as there is little time left to right their ship!
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Wisdom from the Great White North.
Yes, Obama, I used the words Great and White directly next to each other. Send your SEIU thugs to browbeat me. I have a crate of .308 I’m itching to open.
Bubba set the bar at: It depends on what the definition of the word .....
This issue is simmering amongst the people all the more these days. Wish the court would get off its collective *sses!
After watching Glenn Beck last night I’m almost positive that the only way we’ll be able to undo the damage is by impeaching Obama as ineligible. But no one is going to pay attention to the information in this article.
On some long ago FReeper thread on the topic, I vaguely remember someone saying a specific Supreme Court ruling spelled out what Natural Born Citizen means. But I’ve never seen it mentioned again. That’s something that would be useful!
The term "United States" existed long before the Constitution was ratified. Article II Section I Clause V states:
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.
All who were in the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were therefore, eligible.
You are correct. However, I think the author meant that since they were not ‘natural born citizens’ they would not be eligible ...
thus the second clause in the Constitution ... “... or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution ...”
It is good that the second clause was added by the Founding Fathers. Back in April 1789.
Maybe Obama is really old? : )
He’s sure as hell gettin’ old!
You're kind of a 'glass is half-full' person, aren't you?
<>On some long ago FReeper thread on the topic, I vaguely remember someone saying a specific Supreme Court ruling spelled out what Natural Born Citizen means. But I’ve never seen it mentioned again. That’s something that would be useful!<>
These might fit the bill:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Yes, that is what I was thinking of. Thanks very much for the links!
Now if only we could find some Republicans with stones...
The Supreme Court has equated the terms “native born” and “natural born.” Here are two such examples:
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) found that
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1. [A naturalized citizen] becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.”
And the Supreme Court ruled that a “Native born” citizen who can return to the US and run for President:
“Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;”—Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325 – Supreme Court 1939
Well let’s see now...would I rather have Hussein or George Washington in the White House? WOW, what a TOUGH one, huh!
ping
Your question is not tough, however it is not the question before us at this moment in time.
The question is the actual birth status of the current President and occupant of the Oval Office.
The question was never who would we rather have, That takes the rule of law and the Constitution out of the equation. I’d rather keep them in and follow them.
After 30 years in the military I have had to provide my birth certificate numerous times. Not to mention for state government, or to get a passport, or ... well I could go on.
The only hard part I can see is producing one if you do not have one. A birth certificate (bc) is different than a certificate of live birth (colb).
ping
gnip
Presidentius Illegitimus
Not true. A true statement would be: "... anyone born in Hawaii after August 21st 1959, and born to parents (plural) who are citizens of the United States, is a natural born citizen."
Someone who has divided loyalties, or partial allegiance to any other nation (such as one would have if one parent is a British citizen), is not a "natural born citizen", although they might be a "native 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.