Posted on 02/07/2016 10:07:51 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy
The concluding statement in the article:
"The introduction to this Article posed a question: “in the eyes of early Americans, would someone born in a foreign country of American parents be a ‘natural born citizen’ and therefore eligible to be President of the United States?†The pertinent historical materials lead to only one conclusion: aside from children born to U.S. ambassadors or soldiers in hostile armies, the answer is “no.â€"
(Excerpt) Read more at papers.ssrn.com ...
You of course are correct.
But facts don’t matter to the Trump cult.
What benefits Trump is more important than our Constitution.
To assume that the phrase as used in Article II was based on English common law because the Framers were familiar with it and because English common law influenced American law on issues apart from the choice of language in the presidential eligibility clause is to beg the question. This “leap” does not prove anything about the choice of language used in the phrase. It is astonishing how this “leap” is cited as proof over and over again by people claiming to be objective scholars. In particular it ignores the clear distinction in the minds of the Framers between being a subject of a monarch and being a citizen in charge of a republic.
Since the Democrats have had an illegal alien in the White House for seven years, the Republicans are entitled to have at least one President who is a citizen, even though non-NBC.
Very well researched and stated!
Sadly, the actual Constitutionally authorized law passed by some of the very people who wrote the Constitution DOES NOT MATTER to these people who are pushing this issue.
All they are doing is helping Hillary, intentionally or not. And wow, won’t that be great for the Consitution if she gets in? /rhetorical
Do you mean that MITT Romney was not eligible?—or GEORGE Romney was not eligible?
Hey, gunny, long time no see. You may remember me as Virginia Patriot from Townhall or Michelle Malkin’s site.
We conversed on Brian’s blog as well.
MrEdd, I agree with your statement. I also extend it to the children of US citizens born in foreign countries while their parents are on active military duty and in the country under military orders. I.e. my oldest daughter who was born in a US Army hospital in Germany when I was on a 4 year tour there as an active duty soldier with the 3rd Armored Division.
"IV.CONCLUSION
The introduction to this Article posed a question: “in the eyes of early Americans, would someone born in a foreign country of American parents be a 'natural born citizen’ and therefore eligible to be President of the United States?â€
The pertinent historical materials lead to only one conclusion : aside from children born to U.S. ambassadors or soldiers in hostile armies, the answer is “no.â€
Why did you include Romney on that list. His parents both were US citizens and he was born in the United States.
A terrible case. It turns 1,000 years of jurisprudence on its head.
The natural-law purpose of legislation has always been seen to be to enunciate or implement natural law, or any other higher or pre-existing law. This passage starts with the presumption that since legislation states something, the opposite must have previously been true, or else the legislation would have been redundant.
Ted Cruz’ father was first a citizen of Cuba, then a citizen of Canada, and in 2005 he renounced his Canadian citizenship and became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 2005.
Ah. Another person who didn’t read the article before commenting. I think that’s called “Freeperitis” or something.
One issue I’ve never seen addressed is whether this particular presidential eligibility question was intended to apply only to the situation at the time - when the country was brand new and when the sense of just having broken free from foreign domination was very strong - or whether it was intended to be a permanent feature of the presidency.
You mean Abdul born in Saudi Arabia to a Saudi father and an American mother is not a natural born citizen of United States of America?
As stated earlier on this thread, I am a Trumpster. But I want this idiocy to STOP.
In all fairness, Cruz is my no. 2 choice. And I’ve gone back and forth. But this IDIOCY makes Trump supporters (and by implication Trump) look like nutjobs. Frankly, I think more than a few of the people pushing this issue are closet Hillary supporters.
Hey, not fair confusing the closet Hillary supporters with the facts!
/sarc, of course
I bet the Catholic University of America would take a very different view regarding the citizenship of illegal aliens.
I don't know that the NBC effect can be granted ex post facto.
Now, how about quoting that same passage as it is worded in the Naturalization Act of 1795?
Then, tell me if something has changed.
Well said. I've read the references to the Federalist Papers, English common law, etc., etc. But the first sentence of your post simply makes the most sense of all.
So if a person, by reason of birth, can be both a US and a Canadian citizen, he - by my thinking - is not natural born. But I am not I constitutional lawyer, just a citizen who prefers plain thinking. So I freely admit that I might be wrong.
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.