Just for kicks and grins, i'm gonna throw this at you.
Alexander Smythe, House floor 1820.
Posted on 07/27/2023 1:23:56 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Trevor Sutcliffe @TrevorSutcliffe
Vivek Ramaswamy is not legally eligible to be President. The natural born citizen clause predates the Fourteenth Amendment by several decades. He is a Fourteenth Amendment/Wong Kim Ark citizen, not a natural-born citizen. His campaign for the Presidency is illegitimate.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Run for every office except President and Vice President.
The Founding Fathers (or Founding Non-birthing parents, if you prefer) wanted the holders of those two singular offices to be free of any hint of divided loyalties.
Imaging if you will that Panamanian born (born outside the Canal Zone) John McCain became president.
What happens when an enemy stirs up trouble in Panama? ANYTHING McCain did or didn't do would become a political football! Did he defend Panama just because he was born there? Is he ignoring the threat to the south of us and the Monroe Doctrine because he doesn't want to seem like he's catering to Panama? ad nauseum.
He or she would be excoriated on CNN, et al. 24/7/365.241
(Unless they were a democrat, of course!)
Mark Levin’s Cruz-covering NBC definition appears to be this:
Anyone under the sun (provided they also meet the Constitutionally-prescribed age and residency requirements) other than individuals born overseas to non-U.S.-citizen parents.
How is this definition even a country mike from coinciding with or tracking John Jay’s related—and extremely timely—advice to George Washington in 1787 (”Permit me to hint... “)?
Simple common sense.
If they have to pass a law to turn you into a citizen, you are not a natural citizen. You are a naturalized citizen.
...country mile...
+1
I think the 14th amendment was designed to remedy that problem.
The 14th amendment was absolutely not designed to remedy the problem of former slaves becoming president. It was designed to protect the rights of former slaves by making them citizens through a process of mass naturalization.
I've been reading through the debates on the 14th amendment today. They *SAY* it is mass naturalization. The very congressmen who voted on it say it is using the power of congress to naturalize former slaves en masse.
The 14th amendment is a naturalization at birth. Natural born citizens do not need it.
What records? The internet says she started classes 15 day after BHO was born. It also tells us that Fall term didn't start until September 25th, over a month and a half after he was born. I assume Summer classes didn't start in mid-August.
Hawaii also allows people to obtain birth certificates even if they are not actually born in Hawaii, so long as Hawaii is the parent's residence.
But was that still in effect when Obama was born?
He was actually born near the Canal Zone on Panamanian soil.
“...only apply to children born “of parents owning allegiance to no other sovereignty.”
An excellent distinction. Made for a very honorable reason.
He was not seeking to mint the functional equivalent of new NBCs, but rather to remove impediments to ordinary life in the U.S. (and the ability to begin giving birth to new NBCs).
How many times have you seen candidates offering such evidence? Even if asked?
You are mindbogglingly obfuscating. The point of my scenario was that natural-born citizens are different than citizens merely born on the soil.
Just for kicks and grins, i'm gonna throw this at you.
Alexander Smythe, House floor 1820.
Not that that should be considered a distinction that carries with it any real difference.
We weren’t occupying Panama by force, fir Pete’s sake. McCain’s mother and father were hardly dodging enemy fire or hacking their way through the Darien Gap with dull machetes.
There simply is no need to deify John Sidney McCain.
Because everyone here is treating running for president the same as being inaugurated.
There are elections. That is the vetting process. The founders didn’t specify an extensive list of educational, financial, military requirements because the people decide.
People here are coming up with all sorts of non-sensical scenarios, as though any spy worth his salt wouldn’t be able to come up with any documentation necessary to prove his all-American roots.
I feel like the people leaning on this non-starter of an interpretation just want a short-cut, like when Obama ran. Do you really believe that if this interpretation had any validity, the machiavellian Hillary Clinton would not have knocked Obama out before even one primary was held? You know she and her people researched it and even put it out in the zeitgeist.
A natural-born citizen is a person born with citizenship, who doesn’t have to be naturalized to claim the rights of citizenship.
Just the father. The mother immediately acquired the Husband's citizenship upon marriage.
Here is a page from a legal book from 1817 that clarifies things.
(Hawaii also allows people to obtain birth certificates even if they are not actually born in Hawaii, so long as Hawaii is the parent’s residence.
But was that still in effect when Obama was born?)
Yes! Sheriff Arpaio’s lead investigator Mike Zullo investigating Obama’s birth confirmed it.
Yes
You are correct. The founders wanted ALL Presidents after a certain date to have citizen parents and born on our land. All this is based on English common law which they used. The reason is that if your parents who raised you were citizens you should have an allegiance only to the US. Unless I missed it in the last 10 years tho,this has never been adjudicated. Obama was the test…we failed it because Republicans are chicken noses. It may be too late now. I don’t know. So the person who posted that Putin wife could drop a child here, get citizenship, return and raise that child in Russia. Then that child could come to America and run for President….is actually a perfect example. The Founders were brilliant. Our law makers are not.
“Natural born citizens do not need it.”
Very well said, thank you.
I was using a scenario put forth on this thread as to why an NBC MUST be different from a mere citizen. It’s no protection from someone undesirable running for president. The Constitutional requirements are purposely minimal. The election is the vetting.
GOOD LORD!!! I meant no such thing as even dignifying Songbird, let alone deifying him!
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.