Posted on 08/19/2013 8:49:38 PM PDT by servo1969
Apologies about my previous post.. I should have read the rest of the thread before posting ;^)
No wonder he kept his mouth shut about Obama.
Rule by thieves.
You know, after 5 years of discussion of this issue on FR, it is astonishing the number of people who continue to post, “natural born citizenship requires two citizen parents born on US soil” as if it is specifically so stated in the Constitution.
Three questions or comments for them:
1. Do we really want the Courts to arrogate themselves the power to override an election? Aren’t they overly powerful already? Which clause of the Constitution gives the Supremes the power to depose an elected President?
2. If BO were declared ineligible tomorrow by the Supremes, and he stepped down (questionable), he would be replaced, presumably, by Mr. Biden. Is this supposed to be some huge improvement?
3. There is no provision in the Constitution for a mechanism by which a candidate certifies his eligibility. It seems obvious to me that this is because the Founders left such certification up to the Electoral College, which was intended to actually elect the President. As we all know, it almost instantly lost any such actual role, and became a rubber stamp for individual voters, with minor exceptions such as SC pre-war.
So by default the job of ensuring only eligible candidates are elected descends to the voters as a group. If they don’t care enough about the Constitution to enforce it by refusing to vote for an ineligible candidate, the Constitution provides no cure.
In your #3, you show your lack of understanding of the Constitution.
The requirement for the President-elect and the Vice President-elect to qualify to serve in their elective offices is in Amendment XX, Section 3. Note that the burden to qualify is on those two people, not on the USSC.
The burden for declaring that one or both of those people did or did not qualify themselves is, presumably, on the U. S. Congress.
BTW, your #2 is a political point, not a legal or Constitutional point.
And, your #1 shows you think that making an argument that explains the definition of NBC based on historical documents is one that does not base any of the argument on the Constitution. Wrong. The Constitution makes it clear the requirement is that the person must be a Natural Born Citizen. At that point, it must be determined what that phrase meant at the time it was written. Thus, it is necessary to use historical documents to learn what the phrase meant to those who wrote and agreed to the Constitution. Do you really not understand that?
It’s incredible to me, absolutely incredible, how quickly and far a country can fall. The requirement that our President be a Natural Born Citizen means that (s)he is born on U.S. soil to two American citizens. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts.
But apparently in our Brave New One Big Happy New World Order existence, that is now mere folly, and those who would insist upon its adherence are obviously hopelessly Old School and probably racist to boot.
There's no way the Tea Party so frightened the powers that be that they ordered the IRS to target them. There's also no way Marco Rubio ran as a Tea Party star without he himself and a number of others knowing full well his stance on amnesty.
So it follows that there's no way Ted Cruz is a stealth candidate that will serve to divide the Tea Party. No way.
I agree in consistent rules and let chips fall where they may. Screw hypocrisy on either side. My point is dems will suddenly get energized about NBC. :-)
A question:
Why then were references to minor vs happersett scrubbed from the justia law database around the election time?
“...Ted Cruz—I like him but he doesn’t appear to be natural born. Although,being a Cuban married to an American citizen in 1970,what were the “rules” pertaining to citizenship? And what about all of the people that have father listed as “unknown”?”...”
You bring up a good point, what about all the people that have father listed as “unknown”.
Do we assume that, if those people were born here, that their fathers were American citizens?
As for me, I like Cruz where he is, the Senate.
Not true. Mr. McCann's essay is solidly based on both American and British law. The British law is a necessary component of his essay because it was the foundation of our laws and our Constitution.
If you follow the thread of "natural-born", it will take you back to British law and their concept of "natural law" which, ultimately, comes from Aristotle's definition of "natural law". Mr. McCann included the various types of citizens because, within the terms used in British law, citizen and subject appear and have specific meaning. In order to provide a clear and unambiguous definition of "natural-born citizen", Mr. McCann had to include those British terms because those are the laws that the Founders would have been most familiar with and on which they based severl concepts in the Constitution.
So, your claim that it is mere conjecture is incorrect. You wiull also note that, at the end of the essay, he cites several legal cases, including SCOTUS cases, that incorporate or further define the terms "citizen", "subject" and "natural-born".
Good question. I had forgotten about that, but you’re absolutely correct. Scrubbed clean. Rub-a-dub-dub.
I agree. I like him, but he’s not eligible.
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.