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

To: bushpilot1

the term ‘natural born citizen’ has nothing to do with the physical act of birth

it has to do with the person’s alliegences at the time of birth. the founders intention was to insure that the person in the office only had allegiances to the United States. as such, if both parents are US citizens at the time of birth, the child ‘naturally’ has allegiances to the US... as there would be no other allegiance possible

anyone that says otherwise it attempting to cloud a simplistic issue to further their own ideological goals


3 posted on 12/16/2011 5:40:57 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: sten
.....the founders intention was to insure that the person in the office only had allegiances to the United States. as such, if both parents are US citizens at the time of birth, the child ‘naturally’ has allegiances to the US... as there would be no other allegiance possible

You cannot possibly hold a mixed race man eligible for Kenyan, UK, Indonesian, and American citizenship to such narrow nationalistic standards. The fellows who wrote the Constitution were like these old, now-dead white guys, some of whom owned slaves. I saw the document. It is not even typed. It is on this old funky yellow paper.

A white guy President, Chester A. Arthur turns out to have been ineligible by their impossibly archaic standards, so it's only fair that a half-black guy get to skate on this dumb rule, too.

Besides, it's entirely possible that the guy was like born in Hawaii. Lot's of people are born there every day! Hey, what's on cable tonight?

9 posted on 12/16/2011 6:00:57 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (So, you're telling me Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts can't figure out this eligibility stuff?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: sten
the term ‘natural born citizen’ has nothing to do with the physical act of birth

it has to do with the person’s alliegences at the time of birth. the founders intention was to insure that the person in the office only had allegiances to the United States. as such, if both parents are US citizens at the time of birth, the child ‘naturally’ has allegiances to the US... as there would be no other allegiance possible

anyone that says otherwise it attempting to cloud a simplistic issue to further their own ideological goals

I would say that this is true in some cases, (Obot trolls) however I think most of the public has bought the argument that being "born a citizen" is the same thing as being a "natural born citizen" and if a person accepts that as true, the 14th amendment (in their mind) would make anyone "born here" into a "natural born citizen." It is a simplistic and false understanding of the concept and the purpose behind it.

Unfortunately, too many of the public believe this, and for most attorneys this idea appears to be gospel. We as a nation are suffering for the ignorance of our populace, no doubt brought about by the infiltration of Liberal ideas and thinking into our culture.

35 posted on 12/17/2011 6:26:19 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | 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