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

To: greeneyes
With all respect, I'm glad you recognize it as your opinion, since the Senate, the House, and SCOTUS all disagree with you.

Under your opinion, if an American couple were traveling in Europe and had a premature child, that child would not be a NBC. Nor would a child born on an American military base overseas. Nor would the child of an American citizen with a foreign spouse who later became a citizen.

Under your system, even John McCain would not be eligible. He was born in Panama to his Navy parents.

46 posted on 02/17/2010 7:47:54 PM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: MindBender26
SCOTUS has not ruled on the specific meaning with respect to Article II, section 1 of the US constitution.

The Dept. of State manual on Foreign Affairs states with respect to eligibility for President, that it has “never been determined definitively by court whether a person who acquired his US citizenship by birth abroad is a natural born citizen.”

Congressional opinions, actions, and statutes are irrelevant, unless they can get a constitutional amendment ratified. They have no authority to alter the constitution by statute.

As for John McCain, I don't think the framers knew him. However, a good legal case could be made that he was born owing allegiance to the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof rendering the actual geographical location moot. And that would be a fair way to look at the historical meaning. But again, it has not been definitively settled.

The situation is what it is. The fact that it was raised at all with John McCain, should be a hint that it is not settled.

I would not have minded if Obama and McCain had been ruled ineligible or eligible - a ruling one way or the other is what I would like to see. If the ruling is not what the people want and unfair to soldiers, then the constitution can be amended.

If the issue was as settled as you think, the US Dept. of State would not have noted that it had not been settled. Like I said, I have researched the issue extensively, and there are good points on both sides.

After research, I decided there were unsettled issues, and what I think the framers intended. I do not think they intended to include someone who was admittedly a citizen of 3 different countries, because they did not want anyone with foreign allegiances or divided loyalties to be President.

If it makes you feel better to pretend the issue is settled, go right ahead and keep the blinders on.

47 posted on 02/17/2010 9:00:03 PM PST by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: MindBender26

I believe, that most likely there are serious questions about McCains eligibility to run, I have NOT researched the law that was in effect at the time of HIS birth however.


49 posted on 02/17/2010 9:13:32 PM PST by Danae (Don't like our Constitution? Try living in a country with out one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: MindBender26; greeneyes

Yep, Juan is not eligible and the Senate Resolution carries no weight of law.


51 posted on 02/17/2010 9:20:03 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | 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