Anyone who know what the Framers intended, will not confuse the term `natural born citizen’ with `citizen.’
Precisely. All natural born citizens are also citizens, but all citizens are not necessarily also natural born citizens. This is the point. Period.
Some here seem to be intentionally muddling that important distinction because they know it means that all a foreign-born candidate can hope for is citizenship. A citizen not a natural born citizen can serve in any job in this great country but two: president or vice-president.
This is the same argument we made seven years ago; arguing to the contrary can only be attributed to zealous partisanship.
Also (as some one else in this thread pointed out), it is pointless to cite a complex string of statutes and acts that support your position that a citizen is also a natural born citizen because the only way that Article 1, section 2 clause 5 can be changed is with a constitutional amendment.
We all know, or should know that ....
The only reason anyone would do that would be to throw as much as possible against the wall, hoping that something stuck.
It is painful to see the contortions of some here trying to square this circle by tormenting this ancient logical proof:
Socrates is an Athenian
All Athenians are Greeks
Socrates is Greek.
`But hold on! Maybe Socrates was a northern Athenian. And not all Athenians were Attic Greek, some were visitors, basement dwellers, so not all were Greek ... if Socrates was `Greek’ then so is my candidate, Alcibiades. And it isn’t fair that Cleo was from Sicily but allowed to run for counsel while my man cannot. Let me present the ruling of the Archons, subsection three of Article four, ii. 8392 where Pericles measured his foot and found that Socrates was actually ...’ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Ockhams/Occam’s razor, or `the principle of parsimony’: “Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected”.
There’s no reason to `reinvent the wheel’ here, unless one has an ulterior motive; we don’t need anyone to speak for the framers of the Constitution—they spoke for themselves.
The framers used two words: “natural born citizens’ and “citizens” in Article 2, Section 1, clause 5.
Every president since the first American president, Martin Van Buren, has been born on American soil: a natural born citizen; all of the presidents before him—citizens—were born in the American British colonies.
In that context, why is that? Why was every single American-British president and American president born on American soil?
Could it be that the distinction between “natural born citizens” and “citizens” was their understanding of the clause as well?
Don’t make yourselves crazy over this, FRiends. It’s not that complicated unless you make it, or allow it to be made complicated.
To really lay the argument about what is a “natural born citizen,” you have to give a long explanation, like you did so well. I know that it takes lots of work and I compliment you for your contribution.
From my understanding, the special status of citizenship given the term “natural born citizen,” was a way that the Framers of the Constitution prevented the infiltration of a foreign interest into the Presidency. Again, being a natural born citizen, as intended by the Framers of the Constitution, is a person who is born in the U.S. to TWO citizen parents. The Framers did not want a person in the highest office in the land with conflicting national allegiances. It is the prime reason for defining a “natural born citizen” in such strict terms. For example, a U.S. citizen parent and a Cuban citizen parent will cause conflicting national allegiances with their offspring. Let’s say JFK had a Cuban father and a American mother. What would have happened with the Cuban missile crisis if JFK thought it was OK for Cuba to have Soviet missiles—or (hint hint) North Korean missiles with EMP warheads?
You are correct. This is not rocket science.