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

To: CharlesWayneCT
-- The founders wanted the president to be born in this country, not just to be a citizen. They wanted them to be a citizen by birth. --

I think the founders were relatively indifferent as to location of birth, although at the time people didn't travel abroad as easily as we do now, so the supposition was that a person born of citizens would probably be born in the country.

-- The argument that a person can be a citizen by birth, and be born in this country, and still not be a "natural born citizen" doesn't seem to have any rational basis. --

There is abundant rational basis for debate and discussion on the relevance of the citizenship of the parents and the status of natural born citizenship. What's the rational basis for NOT considering the citizenship and allegiance of the parents?

-- As we have already had a case (Arthur) in which the mother was a citizen, but the father was not, there is even precedence. --

I'm not familiar with the case, a cite would be helpful, but I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the case was about citizenship - as was the Wong Kim Ark case.

-- Of course, since "natural born" has no real relevance except as regards the presidency, there isn't a lot of case law on that aspect. --

I agree. And I find Congress to have been derelict for not raising the question at the time the electoral ballots were counted. It's a non-trivial issue, and it should have been debated and resolved.

382 posted on 07/31/2009 7:28:09 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

Foreign born “insert word here” raped a US RIGHT TO LIFE Citizen whose child was born in this country.

Said biological father goes to jail.
Should that child be allowed to be President?

There is your argument.

In this day and age, there are plenty of dead beat dads who skip out on a mother.

Does his sperm mean the child is not a NBC?

Does marriage make a difference? There is plenty of citizenship law that hinges on whether a child’s father and mother were married. SCOTUS has upheld that an unwed father can be treated different than an unwed mother in the 21st century.

there are many questions...

It should have been settled back when our Founding Fathers actually read the bills they were going to pass.

I can’t imagine what a bill would look like that would have to cover all the bases.


390 posted on 07/31/2009 8:22:33 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | 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