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

To: eddie willers

You poor thing, you just posted the very sentence which shows the founders differentiated mere citizen from natural born citizen ... if there were no difference, why address two separate types of citizen while not yet addressing naturalization? But keep on trying to shove your square peg barry bassturd into the round hole. It is instructive for readers.


256 posted on 05/08/2011 11:20:03 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies ]


To: MHGinTN
if there were no difference, why address two separate types of citizen while not yet addressing naturalization?

Because there was one generation that wasn't.

The very people who wrote the Constitution itself.

They were not born in the US (because it didn't exist) and so they were ALL naturalized citizens. Now they did not want a naturalized citizen to hold the presidency, but they also did not want to elude everybody over the age of zero, so they wrote an exception that IF you were a naturalized citizen at the time of the signing of the Constitution, you could still be president.

That condition expired when the last person born before on on September 17, 1787 also expired.

258 posted on 05/08/2011 11:51:46 AM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | 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