How about the words of US Senators?
In 2000 and in 2004 resolutions were advanced to “maximize voter choice by opening the presidency to naturalized citizens”. In 2004 multiple statements specifically pointed to the then Michigan Governor, Jennifer Granholm, who was born in Canada and lived there until the age of four, being ineligible due to the location of her birth - mention was not made of her parents nationality at the hearing.
But it wasn’t just the two proposed amendment resolutions, rather there were fifteen different attempts made since the seventies.
When you read through the resolutions there is much about “fairness”, and “it’s for the children”. Mention is even made of slavery, and get this - dreams. “The dreams of the kids”. Oh yes, all of the tenderest buttons are pushed, all of the finer emotions are appealed to.
Darrell Issa, Hatch, Conyers, and Barney Frank are all heavy hitters in the push to change the eligibility requirement. Frank (who backed several amendment attempts)even refers to the Constitutional requirement as “invidious discrimination”. The founders are mocked repeatedly, and much credit is given to the populace for being “too smart” to fall for a “slick mole” being slid past us and installed in the White House.
Rep. Rohrabacher, CA, who appeared with Frank in front of the Committee, filed a House Joint Resolution 104 at the same time in 2004 - and said it mirrored exactly SJR 15.
Both houses were going after this hard.
Rep. Rohrabacher said, “Let me just note that the reasons our Founding Fathers added a natural born citizen requirement to the Constitution’s qualification for being president, those reasons may have seemed like they were real back then (get that? MAY have seemed like they were real BACK THEN), but they are archaic, and technologically they have been dealt with in the meantime. The main rational seems to be that our Founding Fathers had was to protect future generations from undue foreign influence which would happen through the elections of a foreign-born leader to the Executive office.”
“This mind set prevailed among our Founding Fathers because, of course, they had just freed themselves from foreign domination. And that may have made a lot of sense BACK THEN.” emphasis mine
She goes on to say, “Today of course, the office of President and Vice President are the only offices where a person who is not born in the United States is disqualified from serving.” Also in reference to a list of names she presented of naturalized citizens, she says, “Who are now ineligible for President because they are not U.S. citizens OF birth.”emphasis mine
I believe with my whole heart that the threat of such a thing happening is greater now than it has ever been in history.
According to our representatives in 2004, “The immigrants and naturalized are more patriotic, and the natural Americans take their liberty and freedom for granted.”
Issa had this to say, “So, we could pass a law today allowing someone to be President that previously was in doubt. That would include obviously those born abroad of U.S. citizens” he goes on to mention McCain - .
Basically, the eligibility requirement is mocked for being outdated, un-American, and hints it was only inserted as a sop to those who were believing rumors that foreign monarchs were being approached to serve as President.
A witness at the hearing, Akhil Reed Amar, Prof. of Law and Poli. Sci., Yale had this to say, among other things, “Only the Pres. and Vice Presidency were reserved for birth-citizens”
In 2004, nine short years ago, it was acknowledged that birth in the U.S. was a requirement. Nothing has changed since. There have been no amendments to the eligibility requirements. It does mention that in this Joint Resolution. Mr. Amar, “Now would be the first time we have tweaked the Founders’ rules of Presidential eligibility”.
So, according to the “experts”, the 14th Amendment, nor any law passed since the Constitution was ratified has “tweaked” the requirement. And don’t you love how they make it seem like such and itty-bitty thing? Oh, just a little “tweak”.
“Under the English Act of Settlement, 1701 NO naturalized (English)subject could ever serve in the House of Commons, or Lords, or the Privy Counsel, or in a wide range of other offices. The U.S. Constitution repudiated this (English) tradition across the board, opening the House, the Senate, the Cabinet and the Federal judiciary to naturalized and native alike.” ~ Prof. Amar
So, we threw off English law in regards to our Senators, Reps. Judges, etc., but clung to it to define the qualification for our President and Vice President?
It is said that our natural born eligibility requirement came from English common law, and meant the exact same thing as “natural born subject”, simply put, mere birth on the soil.
While nobility frequently married other nobles born in the same country as they, this was not the case for Monarchs.
Monarchs were NOT excluded from being born in other countries - because royalty usually do marry royalty from afar. An English monarch isn’t going to marry an English monarch. They would marry a German one though, for example. ~ Ladysforest
Over and over in that 2004 resolution it is stated that only those born in the U.S. are eligible. I am not interpreting their words, I am not the internet sea lawyer of which you spoke.
How have things changed in nine years?
A wise man once wrote:
Be careful about tossing aside the Constitution in order to get the President you want because you may wake up the day after the election without not only the President you wanted but also the Constitution that you once had.
Ted Cruz was born to an American mother. He’s a natural born American citizen. And a patriot! And a constitutionalist! He’s more of a patriot and a constitutionalist than any elected democrat! Or any elected GOP-e RINO!! If he runs and if he’s the strongest conservative running, I will support him to the hilt!!
He’s a Reaganite. Strong on life, family, religious freedom, guns, drilling, economic freedom, small (constitutionally limited) government, defense, border security, individual rights, states rights. He’s smart, articulate, accomplished. As Texas Solicitor General has fought and won several supreme court cases defending these founding principles that we all hold dear.
Hell, yes, I’ll support him!!
Run, Ted, RUN!!