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

To: Eric in the Ozarks

Well, at least you finally answered!

Now, why would the Founding Fathers specifically state that ONLY for the President (and VP, if I am not mistaken?), the person must be a natural born citizen as opposed to a citizen?


81 posted on 09/19/2011 6:55:26 PM PDT by battletank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]


To: battletank

As one Justice of the Supreme pointed out during an oral argument, the Founding Fathers actually said the President had to be natural born AT THE TIME of the adoption of the Constitution.

This just goes to show that the wording of the Constitution didn’t always fit their idea. Commas do make a difference.

The Founding Fathers didn’t intend for the VP to actually become President. He was to only be acting President. In fact, the early drafts of the Constitution didn’t even provide for a VP.

Legal Scholars differ on the requirements of Natural Born Citizenship. There can be MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION. Is there? No one knows for sure. It hasn’t been decided.


82 posted on 09/19/2011 7:34:38 PM PDT by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | 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