Posted on 01/17/2016 4:37:25 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
In recent weeks, much time and effort has been devoted to debating whether Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen" eligible for the presidency. Whichever way you come down on this question of constitutional interpretation, the real lesson of this debate should be the absurdity of excluding naturalized citizens from the presidency in the first place. Categorically excluding immigrants from the presidency is a form of arbitrary discrimination based on place of birth (or, in a few cases, parentage), which is ultimately little different from discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. Both ethnicity and place of birth are morally arbitrary characteristics which do not, in themselves, determine a person's competence or moral fitness for high political office.
The "natural born" citizen requirement was originally inserted into the Constitution because some of the Founders feared that European royalty or nobles might move to the United States, get elected to the presidency, and then use the office to advance the interests of their houses. Whatever the merits of this concern back in the 1780s, it is hardly a plausible scenario today.
One can argue that immigrants have less knowledge of the country and its customs, and might make worse presidents for that reason. But that problem is surely addressed by the constitutional requirement that a candidate for president must have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years. As a practical matter, anyone who attains the political connections and public recognition needed to make a serious run for the presidency is likely to have at least as much knowledge of the US and American politics as most serious native-born candidates do.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Well, it was fun while it lasted...but you “tired” of a METHODICAL, step by step process of examination, saw your squirrel and off you went...without answering all my questions.
OK, it’s been real. Enjoy your preconceived notions and your squirrels.
They did not define the term natural born and for that matter did not define the word Citizen.
They obviously didn’t include black people as eligible for either, but they didn’t say it, did they?
When the courts rule that being born a citizen means for all intents and purposes “Natural Born Citizen” will you be satisfied or pissed off?
Agreed—should go without saying.
You are wrong. Not only is The Law of Nations in the Constitution but Vattel is evident throughout the entire Framing of the constitution. You are not in any way open to realizing your error. You have been shown incontrovertible evidence and you REFUSE though obstinacy to ADMIT it is there. You would rather put the constitution at risk by toying with it through a bunch of politicians each with his own ax to grind and most directly owned by the NWO. The Constitution MUST be PROTECTED. You are not doing that. You have joined the leagues of pretenders who wish to change our way of life. OUT OUT DAMN SPOT!!!
What you propose is that one provision of the Constitution modify another provision.
Such a construction is impermissible.
“Because Cruz’s mother was a citizen, he is a citizen by nature of his birth and he is a “natural” citizen. “
Nice try. But he is not a natural born citizen, as is required to be president.
You fail to acknowledge that the 1790 Act was rescinded in 1795.
Out damn spot, indeed.
The 14th Amendment made former slaves who were not Citizens in any sense of the word “Citizens”. Was it the intention of the drafters that these new Citizens were to be considered anything less than Natural Born Citizens?
They were not born citizens and they were not the children of citizens.
So were any of them eligible for president after the 14th Amendment?
I realize you weren’t asking me, but I believe it means Obama, Cruz and
Rubio.
Works for me.
The 14th Amend defines “citizens”. It makes no mention of “natural born citizen”.
I’m so sorry, but I am a very detailed person who always detail my complaints on FR. IMHO my complaints are ignored. I have even been attacked by someone hiding behind “administrator” who called me a “clown” for citing abuse.
The continuous abuse is well documented and it is on every article I have posted. Many stalk and harass me and even send me sexual emails that I have complained about, but nothing is done.
If admins won’t do anything, God still sees everything and He knows the truth. “God only is my Rock and my Salvation; He is my Defence; I shall not be greatly moved.” (Psalm 62:2)
But they were here legally, I believe. therefore he is a naturalized citizen, but not an NBC.
So what you are saying is that even though the 14th Amendment granted former slaves Citizenship, they were still second class citizens because they would not have been eligible for the office of President or Vice President.
Do you really believe that?
BTW the 14th Amendment does not "define" citizenship. It merely declares it.
And just who was the acknowledged EXPERT at the time in INTERNATIONAL LAW? He was THE Reference on the internaational Scene! VATTEL!
“The Law of Nations has been described as “unrivaled among such treatises in its influence on the American founders”.
from Wikipedia Vattel, the Law of Nations
We have a foreigner who grew up out of the usa, who hates America, running this country now. That is why its in there.
The U.S.-born children of persons made citizen by the 14th Amend. are natural born citizens.
Hey you. Only a few clowns want to punt it to the Supremes.
I and a great number of FReepers want to stand behind the Constitution as written and not mess with it nor put it at risk.
SORRY but you are wrong.
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.