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

To: sten

Wow. So insightful. So tell me, constitutional expert, where in the constitution it says both parents have to be citizens for one to be “natural born”? Seems to me that the issue is that the constitution is a little vague in that respect. Since many of the founding fathers had parents from other countries, it would seem to me that parental birthplace may not have been critical. Being born a citizen was their intent, not instituting a complex system of citizen rank.


144 posted on 06/13/2012 5:26:26 AM PDT by Crusher138 ("Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]


To: Crusher138

wow, you really can’t spend 10 minutes to read the Constitution. obviously you’re a DU cockroach, but it’ll stomp you for the amusement of others

from article 2 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.”

now, deploying basic third grade reading skills, one is able to easily see that the founders had written an exception for themselves:

“or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

also, realize that they made a distinction between a citizen and a natural born citizen. people were born within the United States at the time, but their parents may not have been. additionally, their parents were most likely not citizens of the US, as it didnt exist and many people were immigrants

As the founders made such a distinction further reinforces the definition of a Natural born citizen as they wanted to emphisize that just being a citizen was not enough. they wanted to insure that the person in the top office did not have split allegiances, at least by birth. this was also discussed in the federalist papers.

the distinction between citizen and natural born citizen is further emphasized as one notes the other offices only require a person to be a citizen, leaving only the office of the president to have the natural born requirement. if they were the same, there wouldn’t be such a distinction

additionally, the term natural born citizen, has been in world wide use since long before the writing of the Constitution. common terms need no definition.

your ignorance was not their problem

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html


147 posted on 06/13/2012 12:46:18 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | 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