To: SoConPubbie
""""True, but since they did not give a succint and complete definition of Natural Born, they left it up to succeeding generations to define the term."""
NO You are wrong again.... The founders knew exactly what they meant when they authored it. They all agreed. Like I said, they debated every single word untill they agreed. I understand what they meant. It is very clear to me. BUT you think they intentionally made the meaning ambiguous? Jeesh
180 posted on
08/26/2013 6:37:58 PM PDT by
Constitution 123
(someintrest from the legeslature, perhaps then they will heal some appeals brought them.)
To: Constitution 123
NO You are wrong again.... The founders knew exactly what they meant when they authored it. They all agreed. Like I said, they debated every single word untill they agreed. I understand what they meant. It is very clear to me. BUT you think they intentionally made the meaning ambiguous? Jeesh
Prove it.
I have as yet to see any historical documents/references that clearly state that they were all in agreement as to the meaning of "Natural Born".
So far, it has all been oblique references. Put the debate to rest with something that conclusively proves, as you state, they were all in agreeance with your opinion of what is "Natural Born". Not some type of inference, or something that requires the reader to connect the dots, but something definitive.
190 posted on
08/26/2013 6:56:24 PM PDT by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson