Posted on 03/26/2012 8:23:14 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
“The birther view is also that Santorum may not be eligible, because his late father may have been naturalized after Santorum was born. Birthers are asking for Santorum to produce his late father’s records on that.”
Your misinformation gives me an awful headache.
The problem is with Romney and not Santorum.
And both Romney and Santorum give me a headache. I dislike them both.
Further, your snottiness is revolting.
Can you show me where in the framer’s writings they said that a natural born citizen MUST have both parents as citizens?
Quit asking folks to do your homework. Live up to your screen name...go seek and find.
Your question has been answered a zillion times over the past three years and much, much longer.
No, because the term “natural born citizen” was commonly recognized to mean born in-country of two citizen parents.
We have proof that there were two copies of Vattel’s “Laws of Nations” in use by the Framers at the Constitutional Convention—one borrowed by Benjamin Franklin and one by George Washington.
If it didn’t mean that, there was no need for John Jay to entreaty George Washington to change the original wording of the Constitution, to add the term “natural born”.Nor was there the need to carve out the exemption for those born here under British rule. Martin Van Buren( #8) was the first natural born President.
The Constitution is not a dictionary, thus it is not required to define terms of general known usage of the time of its writing. Its intent is often gathered by the contemporaneous other writings of the Framers as they tried to explain the document to their fellow citizens in 1787-1788 as they urged ratification of the document, and other terms that were in general usage at the time. The Supreme Court, in subsequent rulings, has never ruled otherwise.
He sounds like he comes from a great family, exactly the kind of people you want to come here. He speaks well and seems to be a true spokesman for conservatism and genuine American values. At this point, I have nothing but respect for Senator Marco Rubio.
My respect for him will continue to grow if he continues to turn down any presidential or vp offers, including "My Hero" level bonus points if he does the much needed service of pointing out the Constitutional reason why.
All I can say is this — at some point in time, we as a nation might have to revisit the entire “natural born” requirement for being President.
We are not in a revolution against England any longer and there is absolutely no guarantee that a natural born citizen will love his country any better than one who is not.
Just look at Natural Born John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban as an example...
Sorry I revolt you.
Please educate all of us as to what the issue is, where I’m wrong, and what the misinformation is.
What I have said here has been said by many on these threads in the past few weeks. It’s not original with me. So please, tell us what the real issue is. Don’t just say that someone’s snottiness is revolting, without offering corrections.
Thanks.
I can see the wisdom in what they intended and can appreciate that they did what they could to require that the most powerful, single individual in the Republic they were creating have a natural and legal allegiance to the Republic.
They did so using the language and its inherent meanings of their time and they trusted we'd be smart and wise enough to know what they intended.
Perhaps if they had anticipated a scoundrel like Bill Clinton master-de-bating the meaning of "is" or that "donning "gay" apparel" isn't only a part of the Christmas season like when the song was written, they'd have been more specific with definitions.
But, they did see how we would eventually lose it all to those who would undermine what they created for us and would replace our God given liberty and freedom with whatever tyrant they/we chose to take care of us.
Fortunately, many have taken seriously their oath to defend it.
And here we are, still are answering Franklin about whether or not we can keep it.
For many here, especially on these eligibility threads, the answer seems to be NO! and I'm glad they are outing themselves.
I don't like the big picture that is ever so slowly coming into focus, of which the ineligibility issue is but one small, yet vital part.
At the very least, he will be campaigning for whomever has the nomination. At most, I hope that the liberals are the ones who get so salivating with conspiracy theories like birth certificate ideas that they drool like dogs. Anyways, it will be fun to see Rubio, who is a decent debater, go somewhere, and act to solidify the GOP base.
The requirement is only that Marco Rubio himself be born in the U.S., which he was. It’s funny how overboard some people go on the birth certificate issue. Most of what the left will try to bash Rubio with is that he’s not a dark enough Latino, or that he’s a rich Latino, both of which are pretty rediculous. Facts are facts that Rubio can debate, and can embarrass Biden in a debate, so whomever takes the nomination please take Marco.
"...they did what they could to require that the most powerful, single individual in the Republic they were creating have a natural and legal undivided allegiance to the Republic."
That was the point of "Natural Born" Citizenship. You are born here to citizen parents. Not dual citizenship from one or both parents or via anchor baby citizenship and the potential divided loyalties as such might entail.
If we agree on one thing, it should be to follow the letter and intent of the Constitution, amending when necessary, but always to follow the Constitution as it is, rather than what we want it to be for political expediency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.