Posted on 02/17/2011 8:31:53 PM PST by dalight
Your argument is flawed. Why did the founders change the presidential eligibility from born Citizen to natural born Citizen?
During the process of developing a new U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787. He also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
Many of the founders and framers had a fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future be President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. The President was also to be the Commander in Chief of the military.
This fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was particularly strongly felt by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He felt so strongly about the issue of potential foreign influence that he took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements.
John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word natural goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.
The below is the relevant proposed change language from Jay’s letter which he proposed to strengthen the citizenship requirements in Article II and to require more than just being a “born Citizen” of the United States to serve as a future Commander in Chief and President.
John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. “
See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link. This letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted adding the adjective “natural” making it “natural born Citizen of the United States” for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton’s proposed “born a Citizen”. 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 Sep 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.”
Obama is a Fraud and Jamese777 is a liberal troll
Obama Eligibility-related Appeals at the US Supreme Court
Berg v Obama: Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Denied
Application for injunction, Denied
Beverly v FEC: Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Denied
Craig v US: Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Denied
Donofrio v Wells: Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Denied
Herbert v Obama: Application for Stay pending filing of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Denied
Hollister v Soetoro: Petition for Writ of Certiorari for Article III Standing review, Denied; Conference on recusal motion scheduled for March 4th.
Kerchner v Obama: Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Denied
Lightfoot v Bowen: Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Denied
Taitz v MacDonald: Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Denied
Schneller v Cortes: Application for Stay, Denied; Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Dismissed
Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz: Application for Stay, Denied
“It’s been established. He was born here.”—Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI).
“The state of Hawaii says that the president was born there. That’s good enough for me.” John Boehner, Speaker of the House (R-OH).
The statements have no bearing on the natural born citizen status of your peregrine. The spurious obama is not a natural descendant of United States Citizens.
A peregrine in the White House who is attempting to destroy our national fabric is a grave matter.
Inform your masters we will not acquiesce until the peregrine despotic is removed.
Please note your continued defense of him is not moral..it is scandalous. It is better to be a man than a puppet.
Puppets do not do well in storms...
I have no doubt that the Republic will survive Obama.
However, I think that a large number of citizens who believe he is holding the office illegitimately, inevitably weakens the office. That’s not a good thing.
I have no idea how many citizens feel this way, but I think the number is substantial enough to have their concerns officially addressed. If their POV gets officially blown away, so be it.
A fundamental right of Americans is to petition the government for redress of grievances. A fundamental obligation of government is to do so. While your presentations are forceful and realistic, it is not the same thing as a court hearing the case on its merits and issuing a ruling. And the same goes for John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Sarah Coulter, the MSM, etc., in fact, every elected Republican I have queried on the matter!
I think we’ll survive where a president was born and where his parents were born.
Yes we will. Should a future candidate present the same bona fides as Obama, there has to be a much clearer path toward either validation or rejection of that candidate’s constitutional eligibility.
At the moment, you have done yeoman work in telling us what is. We have replied by telling you what we think should be. That, is the point in constitutional government, where our institutions should step in and tell us who is right, who is wrong, why, and exactly what should be done about it. That process is what’s missing.
Obama is using natural born citizen eligibility as a wedge issue to force elected national Republicans to go on the record as birthers or non-birthers. It’s a classic Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals,” divide and conquer community organizing political strategy.
The statements have no bearing on the natural born citizen status of your peregrine. The spurious obama is not a natural descendant of United States Citizens.
A peregrine in the White House who is attempting to destroy our national fabric is a grave matter.
Inform your masters we will not acquiesce until the peregrine despotic is removed.
Please note your continued defense of him is not moral..it is scandalous. It is better to be a man than a puppet.
Puppets do not do well in storms...
House Majority Leader Eric I. Cantor, Virginia Republican, said Sunday he thinks President Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen and that questions on the issue have no place in Capitol Hill policy-making discussions.
“I don’t think it’s an issue that we need to address at all,” he said on NBC‘s “Meet the Press.” “It is not an issue that even needs to be on the policy-making table right now whatsoever.”
[Sarah Palin] said it was unwise for Republicans to keep doubts alive about the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate and citizenship, saying: “It’s distracting. It gets annoying. Let’s stick with what really matters.”
So there are several divergent points of view among conservatives on this issue.
We know so little about the missing documents and the missing years of the man that was elected to lead our country. Yet, within hours we knew every sordid detail of Tiger Woods' sex life when he was involved in a domestic throw down. Media ...what media?
The difference between us and jamese777 is we labor to do what is right for the republic..jamese777 labors for a peregrine by sprinkling beguilement on these threads.
One has to wonder if he cares we are on the road to an irretrievable destruction of the Constitution.
Whether he exercised it or not, Mr. Obama/Soetoro had the legal right and option to choose British, Kenyan, Indonesian, or, if he were born in Hawaii, American citizenship upon reaching his majority.
A "Natural Born Citizen" would not have had these options. Which I suppose is a backwards way of defining NBC!
The first two choices, British or Kenyan were because of his father's citizenship. When adopted by Soetoro, he became an Indonesian citizen by adoption. However, if he had been born in Hawaii, he was a "Native Born Citizen" and would have been free to reassert that status upon reaching his majority, or free to remain an Indonesian citizen.
It is entirely possible, although unproven, that Obama/Soetoro is a "Native American Citizen," but only if he were born in Hawaii. If was born in Kenya, he probably would not be a citizen at all because of his mother's age and the residency requirement of 5 years after her 14th birthday to pass on citizenship.
It is completely impossible that he is a "Natural Born Citizen," according to the traditional view.
To those who disagree, and to those in the GOP who do not wish to make an issue of all of this, I must respectfully hoist the signal: Tango Sierra. I and those who agree with me in kind and degree, are absolutely owed a day in court by our government to have this case, which goes to the Constitution, heard on its merits. My team might lose. And that does not frighten me in the least, for what we seek is an answer.
On the Obama/Soetoro moniker: Obama was asked off the Illinois Bar, and resigned under sealed circumstances. It is perhaps explained best by his Bar Application, upon which he denied use of any alias, hid traffic violations, and failed to report drug use.
In regard to the alias: The putative Hawaiian BC would have been amended upon adoption to reflect his new name, Soetoro etc.. Legal use of the name Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. would have required legally changing it back, of which there is no record. And it is common knowledge that he used various names and combinations.
I can only assume such trolls applaud the destruction of the Constitution. It’s not ignorance, it’s malignity.
Your definition of NBC varies from the meaning of the legal term in use at the time the Constitution was written...
James et al feel that this cast the taint of illegitimacy on the GW administration which followed. I acknowledge that. God knows, I have heard the story drooled into my left ear often enough. That's the way the left feels. I got it.
Now I am asking the same courtesy from the SCOTUS on the case of Obama's actual legitimacy. It is before them. Make a ruling there, or ask a lower court to get discovery and get it back to SCOTUS. Let us know, up or down. If the other team is so confident that Obama/Soetoro is legitimate, they should welcome a day in court with such splendid chaps as we!
Especially since they just placed the 2 loco leftie lesbos on the bench who, if not forced into recusal, will rule that Obama is the Lost Dauphin of France, or anything else, if he asks them.
When Al Gore asked the SCOTUS to step into the Florida fracas with the hanging chads, the black-robed gavileers took about a heartbeat to jump in with both feet. Of course, Al and his people didn’t like the ruling.
James et al feel that this cast the taint of illegitimacy on the GW administration which followed. I acknowledge that. God knows, I have heard the story drooled into my left ear often enough. That’s the way the left feels. I got it.
Now I am asking the same courtesy from the SCOTUS on the case of Obama’s actual legitimacy. It is before them. Make a ruling there, or ask a lower court to get discovery and get it back to SCOTUS. Let us know, up or down. If the other team is so confident that Obama/Soetoro is legitimate, they should welcome a day in court with such splendid chaps as we!
Especially since they just placed the 2 loco leftie lesbos on the bench who, if not forced into recusal, will rule that Obama is the Lost Dauphin of France, or anything else, if he asks them.
The difference between us and jamese777 is we labor to do what is right for the republic..jamese777 labors for a peregrine by sprinkling beguilement on these threads.
One has to wonder if he cares we are on the road to an irretrievable destruction of the Constitution.
I see that the word of the day is “peregrine.” Let’s hear it for the FALCONS of the United States Air Force Academy!!!
Somehow I just don’t think that John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Sarah Palin, Governor Linda Lingle, John McCain, and Congressman Darrell Issa are all willingly participating in the “irretrievable destruction of the Constitution” because they want to defeat Obama the old fashioned way, by kicking his tail at the polls in 2012.
I suggest that word of the day for tomorrow be “hyperbole.”
THEY tell me he has divided loyalties between the US & UK
________________________
That is a lie!!! He has divided loyalties with Kenya. You’re so full of crap. Did you even read the links and do the research I told you to do. He hates the UK. Despises them and if you did your research you would know why and I’m not wasting anymore time being your gofer. Obviously you are nothing more than an Obongo loving troll.
One of Barack Obama’s first actions upon taking office was the unceremonious rejection of the Winston Churchill bust which had been loaned to our nation as a symbol of friendship and trust after the 9/11 terrorist attack on America. Subsequent actions by Mr. Obama have revealed a deep seated hostility towards our old and valued ally culminating in his un-presidential response to the BP oil spill.
In an exclusive interview with the UK Daily Mail Sarah Onyango, the woman Barack Obama calls ‘Granny Sarah’ gave some insight into her grandson’s anti-British bias.
“...Sitting under a mango tree in the garden of her modest home in Kogelo village, Kenya, surrounded by the family’s chickens, cows and goat, she recalls telling Barack Obama his family history on his first visit to Kenya in 1988.
‘I narrated the whole story to Barack one evening to help him understand our family’s past. He wasn’t amused at all. He expressed quite a lot of concern about why the British had to punish his grandfather...’”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2538582/posts
You remain an idiot. I have argued repeatedly that Obama hates the UK, which means he doesn’t have his loyalty divided between the UK & the USA. That is a problem for birthers, who claim his divided loyalties to mother England disqualify him.
Nor does Kenya count, since he cannot even apply for citizenship in Kenya - he is too old. And frankly, there is no sign he gives a rat’s rear end about Kenya, either. But he certainly is NOT a citizen there, so that doesn’t support birthers.
Bottom line: the Founders used a common legal phrase to say what they meant - natural born citizen. It had a precise meaning under the law, and that meaning allowed the children of aliens in amity to become President. The Founders COULD have written “born of citizens” instead of “natural born citizen”, but they did not.
“I’m just one guy posting an opposing point of view. The last time I looked, that’s still allowed in America. “
Nope. You must submit, or you join the traitorous ranks of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin and others...RINOs!
< / sarcasm >
Peregrine is a foreigner in a country. In Rome he was a subject but not a citizen.
This would mean a natural born subject is not the same as a natural born citizen.
Nice try to deflect the meaning of peregrine. But this is what you do....deflect.
BFL
Leftists have only one standard, and it’s always wrong. They’re evil and cannot see truth or speak it.
A male peregrine and a female Roman citizen have a son. The son remains a peregrine...a foreigner.
Hence the term peregrine for Obama.
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.