Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: seekthetruth
I have been trying to find the legal definitions of “natural born”. Do you have the link? Thanks!

It has changed over the years, McCain would have to comply with the law 72 years ago, on the other hand Obama would have to meet the requirements, that were in force, in 1961, we don't do retroactive laws, except of course when we want to dig up dead people and tax them as Clinton did.

2,284 posted on 11/19/2008 9:57:30 AM PST by itsahoot (We will have world government. Whether by conquest or consent. Looks like that question is answered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2243 | View Replies ]


To: itsahoot
Natural born was defined once. In a 1790 law. The 1795 law that replaced it drops the reference to "Natural Born".

The term hasn't had an actual legal definition since.

2,292 posted on 11/19/2008 10:06:45 AM PST by null and void (0bama is Gorbachev treating a dying system with the same poison that's killing it in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2284 | View Replies ]

To: itsahoot

From what I have read since this all came out a couple of days ago, the following paragraphs I think summarize the gist of the Donofrio suit.

There is no definition of the term “natural born” anywhere that can supercede what is contained in the Consitution itself. No law, statute, etc. can amend the U.S. Constitution, since it is the Supreme law of the land. (Or at least it is suppoesed to be.) Only an amendment can change what was originally writen in the constitution.

The only place the term “natural born” is defined (that can be considered legal) is within the Constitution itself. It is in the section refering to the president and that definition must be inferred by the fact that the founding fathers by adding the only exception to the “natural born” clause. The one exception allows for citizens at the time the constitution was adopted to be eligible to be President as well as “natural born” citizens.

The inference is pretty clear since the Founding Fathers were not “natural born” citizens because they were born as British subjects. This enabled them to be the early leaders of this country and get it started on the path they had laid out, but to deny the future leaders from having divided loyalties by birth. Hence to be a natural born citizen you must be born on U.S. soil and not have the possibility of foreign citizenship at birth to any other country.

Please correct me if any of you others who have read his suit feel my interpretation is missing something, but I think it sums up what Donofrio’s stance is regarding the term “matural born” citizenship status.

I would note that when I studied the Constitution in grade school as a child, this is pretty close to the example my teacher provided to us. I will explain that in another post.


2,314 posted on 11/19/2008 11:56:42 AM PST by Flamenco Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2284 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson