That's called jus sanguinis It's the same rule England used to press American sons into service in the British navy. That is why I believe our founding Fathers rejected it. The US government does not have absolute rights to the firstborn of every American citizen.
We are citizens not subjects!
Sure, can you define American? So keeping with the spirit of YOUR posts, we can safely assume that Canadians, Mexicans, Columbians, Somoans, Brazilians, and a whole host of other “-ians”, can become President?
Nope, none of those country names include the word American. Can we step back from Hyperbole-land? That is neither what I said, nor what I meant, and you know it.
Besides, let’s see YOU define the word “IS” without using the word “IS”.
The third person, singular, present indicative of 'to be'
Define American blood. (We’ll give you a pass on “American” vs “Citizen of the U.S.” for this one.)
Any citizen of the United States has American blood flowing their veins.
Not every citizen can be president.
but we would simply define “natural born citizen” as written in the Constitution.
If only it actually was defined in the Constitution, we wouldn't be agonizing over it right now, would we?
Find one that wants to be a politician. Well, except me of course, but I fear the power might corrupt me.
*sigh* Me too. Besides, I could never survive the vetting process...
I used to be an opponent of term limits. I defended it loudly with “aren’t YOU smart enough to vote a bad politician out of office”...it was usually met with murmuring and grumbling. Twenty years later, I’ve change my opinion about term limits, and realized the murmuring and grumbling was them saying “no” (obviously). For example, look at ol’ Chappaquidick Ted. In public service his whole life, and deigns to call himself “leader”.
Yeah.
“That’s called jus sanguinis It’s the same rule England used to press American sons into service in the British navy. That is why I believe our founding Fathers rejected it. The US government does not have absolute rights to the firstborn of every American citizen.
We are citizens not subjects! “
And by defining Citizens of the U.S. as being offspring of two citizens would make us “subjects” exactly how? Simply because the founding fathers disagreed with it doesn’t make it bad. They disagreed with the wording in the Constitution,and finally “compromised” on much.
“Sure, can you define American? So keeping with the spirit of YOUR posts, we can safely assume that Canadians, Mexicans, Columbians, Somoans, Brazilians, and a whole host of other “-ians”, can become President?
Nope, none of those country names include the word American.”
You’re right, but America is the name of not one, but two continents. America is NOT the name of any country. Pretty much anyone in the Western Hemisphere can call themselves an American. Much like the old Soviets could call themselves Soviets no matter which of the oppressed countries they came from. It’s only because we haven’t really gien our country a name. Even after lincoln deigned to demand federal rule.
“Can we step back from Hyperbole-land?”
I will if you will. 225 years indeed.
“That is neither what I said, nor what I meant, and you know it.”
Yeah, sort of the way I felt, bub. That whole 225 year old comment was assinine, and I felt it needed to be responded to in kind.
“Besides, let’s see YOU define the word “IS” without using the word “IS”.
The third person, singular, present indicative of ‘to be’”
As in?
“Define American blood. (We’ll give you a pass on “American” vs “Citizen of the U.S.” for this one.)
Any citizen of the United States has American blood flowing their veins. “
Hardly. A naturalized citizen immigrant from anywhere else does not.
“Not every citizen can be president.”
Like I said.
“but we would simply define “natural born citizen” as written in the Constitution.
If only it actually was defined in the Constitution, we wouldn’t be agonizing over it right now, would we?”
And if you did better parsing, you wouldn’t be.
The words “natural born citizen” are written in the Constitution. I said we DEFINE it (because we NEED to).
“Find one that wants to be a politician. Well, except me of course, but I fear the power might corrupt me.
*sigh* Me too. Besides, I could never survive the vetting process...”
Sure you could. Unless of course you have a spotless record of always supporting the Constitution.
bj billie smoked pot, barry is a cokehead, bj was also a philanderer, jimmy carter lusted after women that weren’t his wife. jfk was a philanderer, a liar, and probably cheated at cards. fdr was a communist. Washington and Jefferson owned slaves.
If you haven’t been found at a murder scene with your hand on the knife inside someone’s ribs, you’d pass the vetting process.
I’m gonna want a position in your cabinet though as Secretary of Defense. I want Limbaugh as Secretary of State. I like playing with guns, and Limbaugh will give me lots of opportunity.
Two points. First, they couldn't have rejected it based on the pressing of Americans into British Navy service, since that mostly happened around 20 years *after* the Constitution was written. Secondly they didn't reject it at all. The 1790 law, passed by the first Congress only 3 years after the Constitution was written in September of 1787, provided:
"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".