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

To: Mr Rogers
Okay obot, what in your opinion does NBC mean? Why did the FF differentiate the difference in the qualifications for office of Senate vs POTUS?

Hmmmmmmmm?

WTF is the difference??????????????

76 posted on 02/08/2011 4:29:08 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (The Tree of Liberty did not grow from an ACORN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: Las Vegas Ron

Well, do you have to be born a citizen to be a Senator? Could you have been born overseas, and still be a Senator?

” Citizenship: Under English law, no person “born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland” could be a member of either house of Parliament. While some delegates may have admired the “strictness” of this policy, no framers advocated a blanket ban on foreign-born legislators. Instead, they debated the length of time members of Congress should be citizens before taking office. The states’ residency qualifications offered moderate guidelines in this regard. New Hampshire’s state senators needed to be residents for at least seven years prior to election. In other states, upper house members fulfilled a five, three, or one-year requirement, while state representatives completed a residency period of one to three years.

The Virginia Plan made no mention of citizenship when Edmund Randolph introduced it to the convention in May. Two months later, the Committee of Detail reported a draft of the Constitution. Article V, section 3 included a four-year citizenship requirement for senators. On August 9, Gouverneur Morris moved to replace the four-year clause with a fourteen-year minimum. Later that day, delegates voted against citizenship requirements of fourteen, thirteen, and ten years before passing the nine-year provision, making the Senate requirement two years longer than that for the House of Representatives.

At the convention, delegates viewed the nine-year citizenship qualification as a compromise “between a total exclusion of adopted citizens” and an “indiscriminate and hasty admission of them.” While they were concerned that the Senate, especially, might be subject to foreign influence, they did not wish to close the institution to naturalized citizens of merit. Two foreign-born framers expressed these opposing considerations. According to Pierce Butler, recent arrivals were dangerously attached to their countries of origin, a particular concern for senators whose role would include review of foreign treaties. From his own experience, he believed that naturalized citizens would need sufficient time to learn and appreciate American laws and customs before they could serve in government. For James Wilson, however, lengthy citizenship requirements “discouraged and mortified” everyone they excluded. He agreed with Benjamin Franklin that a strict policy would hinder positive immigration and offend those Europeans who had supported the Revolutionary War. On August 13, Wilson moved to reduce the Senate qualification by two years. Delegates rejected his motion, and confirmed the nine-year requirement by an 8 to 3 vote.”

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Constitutional_Qualifications_Senators.htm

So you see, requiring someone to be born in the US was a stricter requirement by the Framers, and one that was expressed by the legal term they used. However, it did NOT require two citizens to be the parents.


77 posted on 02/08/2011 4:39:55 PM PST by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | 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