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

To: CSM
Hahaha! What would you do about the children of our service men and women? Do you honestly believe that our Framers would have defined Natural Born to be “within the borders of the United States?

Do you honestly think it would have been a problem? Because the Constitution clearly prohibits funding the Army for more than two years at a time.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

IOW, the deployment/stationing abroad that is so commonplace now would have been unthinkable then.

By their own history, the Framers must have defined Natural Born Citizen to mean something beyond “born in the borders of the United States.”

I agree, but this is the question.

142 posted on 03/23/2015 11:35:29 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]


To: OneWingedShark

“IOW, the deployment/stationing abroad that is so commonplace now would have been unthinkable then.”

And so was 1 day travel half way around the world. At that time in history, an American family could be in Europe, get pregnant and still not make it back to the 13 states in time to give birth.

Given soome of the FReeper opinions on this thread, our service members could very welll give birth while stationed oustside the borders and their child would NOT be eligible to run for POTUS. Yet, under current laws, illegal immigrants can sneak across the border and give birth and her child WOULD be eligible to run for president.

And the Gods of the Copy Book headings with Terror and Slaughter return.....


153 posted on 03/23/2015 11:56:51 AM PDT by CSM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | 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