Posted on 03/23/2012 5:55:59 PM PDT by Retired Chemist
Are you saying that Hinman was in cahoots with Arthur in disputing his birthplace so in order to head fake everybody on his father’s status. Even thou Hinman was the only one who really cared at the time. If this is true, Arthur was clever enough to have become the greatest President of all time.
Then.........why in the world does the Constitution make the distinction? Here it is!
[Article II; Section I; 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.
There is no such requirement for Judges, Representatives or Senators. Why the distinction?
Because..... like it was commonly understood in the eighteenth century....a "Natural Born Citizen" was one whose parents were both citizens as well at the time of his birth. Otherwise.....don't include the phrase.... "Natural Born". Just say....."citizen".
The reason the framers insisted the phrase be included was because John Jay.....the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, had asked George Washington to make sure it was included. He felt the Chief Executive should be a person with no possible other allegiances. As with Barack Obama....it can be said he has a definite allegiance to his Father's country, Kenya whether or not he was born there. His father was not a U.S. citizen so it would be natural to also have an affinity for his father's homeland. This was what John Jay was attempting to avoid. He wanted to make sure the Commander in Chief had no such foreign entanglements. John Jay had also written many of the Federalist Papers and carried much influence among the framers of the Constitution.
It's actually not my argument. It's history.... but many folks have not been taught the Constitution during the last fifty years or so. When I was in grade school during the fifties we were taught what a "Natural Born Citizen" meant. The fact that government schools have not properly educated children in the Constitution does not make it my argument.
Again......if there is no difference in the two qualifying factors.....why spell them out? Use your head. The framers wanted a chief executive born of parents who were also citizens. That's why they specify, "At the time of the adoption of this Constitution"! Later on.....there would be no reason to worry about this qualifying factor as multitudes of qualified candidates would have been born to citizen parents. In 1789.....that wasn't the case.
Sorry.....but you are terribly misinformed....or else just stubborn.
Since both of these men were born to non citizens they were indeed born as "Citizens" of the U.S., but not "Natural Born Citizens". You can stamp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue.....but you're still going to be wrong.
Simple logic tells you why they included the words “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” Without that they would of had to wait until John Tyler to have an eligible President, whose grandsons are still alive by the way.
A person born outside the borders of the United States, say London, England was eligible to be President if they were a citizen upon the ratification of the Constitution. Three who come to mind are Charles Lee, Horatio Gates and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton had ambitions. His opponents had many arguments against him, but not his place of birth. Or his parents citizenship. His parents’ characters yes, but not citizenship status.
if I told you the Bilderburgers do not really run the world.
...yeah, they just meet annually for a poker game and tea...
maybe looking at the US Supreme Court ruling in 1874 Minor vs
Happerset where they defined in the highest court of the land that NBC was a person born to parent citizens. Court precedent and all that stuff... Zer0 isn’t eligible, neither is Rubio or Jindal, or Cain for that matter, but the Dems knew they could whip him so they put through the Senate resolution to try and cover the issue.
Maybe you could look back at the Senate race when Obozo the “constitutional” lecturer admited in a debate with Keyes that he wasn’t eligible, but that didn’t matter since he was only running for Senate.
ymmv
George Zimmerman, in his role as neighborhood watch of a gated suburban community in Florida, had “no authorization” to take action against 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) told TPM Friday. “This is a self-made head of a community neighborhood watch. That’s where my concern is.” Zimmerman claims he shot Martin — who was only carrying a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea — in self defense. The shooting has renewed debate over Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows the use of deadly force if a person feels threatened. West said the Florida law “does not apply whatsoever” to the Martin case, because Zimmerman was not being pursued by Martin. Anti-gun lobbyists shouldn’t use the legislation to score political points, West added, without commenting on the law further. Martin’s death has sparked a national outcry. Amid the outrage over the shooting, Sanford, Florida, Police Chief Bill Lee “temporarily” stepped aside from the Martin case, because he said his involvement was becoming a distraction. In a scathing statement Thursday, West called the case an “outrage” and urged Lee to step down. The police chief’s doing so is a “positive step,” West said. The Justice Department, along with local and state authorities, are investigating the shooting, which West said is “exactly what we should have happen.”
However in 1898, 24 years later, in US v Won Kim Ark the court ruled that a person born in the US of alien parents was a natural born citizen. Minor v Happerset was interesting in that it ruled that women did not have the right to vote, but they had the right to be President, if they won the election of course.
Absolutely correct since there was NO Constitution until 1789, thus “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” However, the Birth Bozos have taken that to mean there is a separate category of citizenship other than Natural Born or Naturalized. BTW, until about a couple of years ago, this Birth Bozo theory was completely unknown.
New Obot Troll spreading manure alert.
THANK YOU! I'm glad to see someone is paying attention.
His bio from Wikipedia:
Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, the second son and third child of Mario Rubio (1927–2010) and Oria Garcia (born 1931). His parents were Cubans who had emigrated to the United States in 1956 and were later naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975.
"Citizen" and "natural born citizen" are NOT the same thing.
He was born in the US to persons in the country legally, so he was born a citizen, but not a natural born citizen becasue his parents were not yet citizens themselves.
His bio from Wikipedia:
Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, the second son and third child of Mario Rubio (1927–2010) and Oria Garcia (born 1931). His parents were Cubans who had emigrated to the United States in 1956 and were later naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975.
"Citizen" and "natural born citizen" are NOT the same thing.
Thank you for explaining this issue so completely to gutsy in #60. I admire your patience and aplomb.
gutsy, Please go home; you’re obviously lost.
Considering all the golfing, vacationing, and general disconnection, I would say that Obama still doesn’t have much experience to do the job.
Article II - The Executive Branch, Section 1
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.
How does the Constitution define citizenship?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
For those of you in Rio Linda, that means that persons born in the United States are “natural born” citizens vs. those not born in the United States that have to be “naturalized”. Note, that means there are ONLY two types of citizens; those born in the US and those not born in the US who obtain citizenship after birth. Ergo, those born in the United States are natural born citizens.
Nowhere are ANY US born citizens required to be prove themselves and deemed to more “natural” than “natural” by proving that at the time of their birth, one of both of their biological parents, were US citizens. Nada, nill, zip, zero.
Where some “birthers” and people from Rio Linda get themselves all confused is when a person is born outside of the US to one or more parent who are US citizens and whether or not that person is considered a citizen of the United States at birth, i.e. “natural born”.
Currently Title 8 Section 1401 of the US Codes states the following are citizens of the United States at birth:
•Anyone born inside the United States *
•Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
•Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
•Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
•Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
•Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
•A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
The underlined and * being important in that it deems that the children born outside of the US or in a US possession to US citizen diplomats, US citizen military personnel or to an expat American citizen or citizens working or living abroad are deemed to have been born in the US provided that, and only that they meet the stated conditions.
The first in bold is self evident. Persons born in the US are deemed citizens at birth, i.e. “natural born” citizens.
BTW, some say that Santorum isn’t eligible either because his father wasn’t a citizen at the time of his birth. Then there is this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2859724/posts?page=90#90 And this
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2859724/posts?page=92#92
Someone posting 17 times on a thread with 89 total posts is a dead giveaway.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
The fogbowers have no life. They actually brag about how many FR IDs they have, and how many times they’ve been banned. It is a badge of honor to them. Imagine how hollow, boring, shallow and meaningless your life would have to be, to take pride in trolling a website. Do you have the time to troll fogbow? I certainly don’t. I have a life, and it’s all I can do to post occasionally on FR.
I used to not be overly fond of the fogbow trolls. Now I just pity them. Maybe someday they’ll have real lives. Until then, a ‘big day’ for them is one in which they successfully troll FR. Sad. Sad, sad sad.
First of all Minor v Happersett was made moot by passage of the 19th amendment.
Secondly the phrasing in the ruling: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” is a dicta, in legal terms for those of you in Rio Linda a side note with no legal weight.
Minor v Happersett made mention that there were some doubts by some as to the citizenship status of persons born in the United States to parents were not citizens at the time of their birth, the important and relative statement by the SCOTUS was that “for purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts”. In other words the SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett did not and never made a ruling on whether or not a person born in the United States to non-citizen parents were natural born or not, they only made passing mention that “some” had doubts and stated it was irrelevant in this case anyway.
And a subsequent ruling by the SCOTUS - United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) ruled otherwise.
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.