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

To: SoConPubbie

The fact that Naturalization law adopted in 1795 removed the phrase “natural born citizen” tells us that this phrase did not have the same meaning as the phrase “born a citizen”. Otherwise, why change the law after only five years?

Few years earlier, Hamilton proposed that the eligibility requirement for US Presidency includes the phrase “born a citizen”. Instead, John Jay’s proposal was adopted. In his letter to George Washington Jay proposed that eligibilty be given to “natural born Citizens”.

Eligibility requirement is a national security measure, a strong check preventing a person with dual allegiance from taking command of US military.

Neither Obama nor Cruz are eligible for US presidency.


204 posted on 08/26/2013 7:34:53 PM PDT by nosf40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies ]


To: nosf40
The fact that Naturalization law adopted in 1795 removed the phrase “natural born citizen” tells us that this phrase did not have the same meaning as the phrase “born a citizen”. Otherwise, why change the law after only five years?

The law was about Naturalization. It was called a Naturalization Act. They could have removed the comment about Natural Born Citizen because it wasn't relevant to a Naturalization Act.

208 posted on 08/26/2013 7:51:31 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | 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