Schwarzenegger Gets Endorsement of Darrell Issa

FOX News | 26 Sep 2003 | FOX News

[Sabertooth]

Our first, 2nd and 3rd presidents were "naturalized" citize

Yes, and I believe the exception for those born before 1787 is still in effect, as it should be.

Article II. Section 1, Clause 5: 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.
U.S. Constitution

[Texasforever]

The point still stands.

[Sabertooth]

The point still stands.

Not really. Your point was that the first, second, and third Presidents were "naturalized" citizens. They weren't, as the Constitution understands "naturalized," they were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

Naturalization, in it's current form, didn't come into play until after that time.

Furthermore, your implied notion that there is an equivalence between naturalized citizens and citizens born in the pre-Revolutionary period is rejected by Washington and Madison, the first and fourth Presidents, who were signatories to the Constitution, and Article II. Section 1, Clause 5, which denies the eligibility for the Office of President of the United States to citizens who were born after 1787, and are not natural born.

[Texasforever]

hey weren't, as the Constitution understands "naturalized," they were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

The point stands. At least the first 3 presidents were NOT native born American citizens. I am not arguing the constitution here just the reality of the circumstances. You have repeatedly assured everyone that you are not anti-immigrant, just anti-illegal immigrant but then you blast a conservative republican because he does not view naturalized citizens as 2nd class. Your facade is crumbling.

[Sabertooth]

The point stands. At least the first 3 presidents were NOT native born American citizens. I am not arguing the constitution here just the reality of the circumstances. You have repeatedly assured everyone that you are not anti-immigrant, just anti-illegal immigrant but then you blast a conservative republican because he does not view naturalized citizens as 2nd class. Your facade is crumbling.

Your facade is dissembling.

The first several President who were born before the adoption of the Constitution weren't immigrants, your attempt to muddle the matter notwithstanding. However, they understood the danger of having an entire branch of the federal government held in the hands of a single individual who was not a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

Therefore, to support Article II. Section 1, Clause 5, as written, is hardly an "anti-immigrant" position, despite the hiked-skirt hyperbole of the Democrats and a few Republicans.

[Texasforever]

Therefore, to support Article II. Section 1, Clause 5, as written, is hardly an "anti-immigrant" position, despite the hiked-skirt hyperbole of the Democrats and a few Republicans.

What about the son of an immigrant? How many generations has to pass before they are "real 'muricans" ?

[Sabertooth]

*Therefore, to support Article II. Section 1, Clause 5, as written, is hardly an "anti-immigrant" position, despite the hiked-skirt hyperbole of the Democrats and a few Republicans.

**What about the son of an immigrant? How many generations has to pass before they are "real 'muricans" ?

Look it up yourself, in the Constitution.. what does it say about the eligibility of natural born citizens to be President?

[BibChr]

Now see 519!

And as to Melanie, who I've never heard -- you do it!

(c8