Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Federalist Papers are not part of the constitution.
The Federalist Papers were written and published to advocate for the ratification of the United States Constitution.
Jay's Federalist Papers that focus on the dangers of foreign influence are particularly relevant to his suggestion to George Washington of adding the 'natural born citizen' clause to the Constitution as a 'strong check' to prevent foreign influence at the highest levels of the federal government and the U.S. Commander in Chief.
And yet we have actual documentary evidence that Jay wrote a letter to a Framer of the Constitution (George Washington) specifically discussing restricting foreign influence by adding the 'natural born citizen' clause.
...And not one single letter to a Framer from Nostradamus discussing the same.
Seems you have your facts mixed up.
Jay may have expressed his opinion, but it's entirely possible Washington did not agree with him.
which shows that IC is ignorant on history and the intent.
Not so. Read my post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The Federalist Papers were written and published to advocate for the ratification of the United States Constitution.
Jay's Federalist Papers that focus on the dangers of foreign influence are particularly relevant to his suggestion to George Washington of adding the 'natural born citizen' clause to the Constitution as a 'strong check' to prevent foreign influence at the highest levels of the federal government and the U.S. Commander in Chief.
Actually, the part that made it in is Jay's suggestion of the 'natural born citizen' clause, the intent of which was to provide a 'strong check' to prevent foreign influence.
Preventing foreign influence at the highest levels of the federal government and the Commander in Chief was of utmost concern to Jay. He wrote the Federalist Papers on the dangers of foreign influence.
Why did you snip that part of my post to reply to and ignore the part that discusses how the Constitution addresses the concern about "allegiance", by applying a 14 year residency requirement?
Why did you ignore the part that explains how Barack Obama meets the definition of Natural Born Citizen status based on the laws in effect at the time of his birth, as written in the Constitution, Legislated by Congress and ruled upon by the Supreme Court?
Why are you ignoring the fact that there is no exclusion of dual citizens being eligible for the Presidency anywhere in the Constitution, our Federal Laws or Supreme Court Rulings?
Chester Alan Arthur, the 21st President of the United States, was born with dual citizenship in 1829, long, long after any "grandfathering" was necessary. His mother was U.S. born, but at the time of his birth President Arthur's father William was a citizen of the U.K., having been born in Ireland, which, as is the case with Barack Obama, bestowed dual U.S. and U.K. citizenship on newborn Chester. This fact did not make him ineligible to become President of the United States, and it does not disqualify President Obama, any more than it did Chester A. Arthur.
Why did you snip that part of my post to reply to and ignore the part that discusses how the Constitution addresses the concern about "allegiance", by applying a 14 year residency requirement?
That requirement is not in question.
Quote:
Why did you ignore the part that explains how Barack Obama meets the definition of Natural Born Citizen status based on the laws in effect at the time of his birth, as written in the Constitution, Legislated by Congress and ruled upon by the Supreme Court?
Because Obama doesn't. You have cited a strong case that Obama is an American citizen, but you have no evidence whatsoever that he's a natural born citizen.
Quote:
Why are you ignoring the fact that there is no exclusion of dual citizens being eligible for the Presidency anywhere in the Constitution, our Federal Laws or Supreme Court Rulings?
Obama's ineligible because he is not a natural born citizen. Obama was born a foreign national; he owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign/country at birth. That's already been established
Quote:
Chester Alan Arthur, the 21st President of the United States, was born with dual citizenship in 1829, long, long after any "grandfathering" was necessary. His mother was U.S. born, but at the time of his birth President Arthur's father William was a citizen of the U.K., having been born in Ireland, which, as is the case with Barack Obama, bestowed dual U.S. and U.K. citizenship on newborn Chester. This fact did not make him ineligible to become President of the United States, and it does not disqualify President Obama, any more than it did Chester A. Arthur.
Who knew that at the time? Cite proof.
The attempts to focus on Arthur's ineligibility were aimed at proving he was born in Canada (he wasn't).
Arthur was known to lie about his past and parentage, and he was so caught up in his web of deceit that instead of donating his papers to libraries or archives as other presidents had done, he had his papers burned. Encyclopedia of Library and ... - Google Books
Because Obama doesn't. You have cited a strong case that Obama is an American citizen, but you have no evidence whatsoever that he's a natural born citizen.
That's just absurd. Why are you ignoring the case law that defines what a natural born citizen is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Obama's ineligible because he is not a natural born citizen. Obama was born a foreign national; he owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign/country at birth. That's already been established
President Obama is a natural born citizen and you have not proven otherwise. President Obama was born a dual citizen, a classification that expired fully in 1984, leaving only his natural born U.S. citizenship status, which he never renounced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Who knew that at the time? Cite proof.
The attempts to focus on Arthur's ineligibility were aimed at proving he was born in Canada (he wasn't).
Of course it was known at the time! The proof is in the fact that the first allegation to attempt to disqualify him was that he was born in Ireland where his father was from (sound familiar?). When that allegation went nowhere, then they came up with the "born in Canada" nonsense.
There is NO PROSCRIPTION AGAINST DUAL CITIZENSHIP in the Constitution or anywhere else for that matter, when it comes to qualifications for eligibility to become POTUS.
The only reference to that I've seen indicates that Jefferson and others were awarded 'honorary' French Citizenships that were not officially recognized by either the U.S. or France.
Could you please provide your source for that?
Regardless, it would not affect his grandfathered status.
"No person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"
but it affects EVERYONE who has citizenship after the Constitution was adopted.
you can't have it both ways dude.
Jefferson was made a citizen via the US Constitution. People born after him on US Soil are citizens automatically because of the Constitution.
Jefferson WILLINGLY became a French Citizens after the Constitution was adopted, thereby having DUAL citizenship.
HE was elected the 3rd President of the united states even though with dual citizenship status.
You argument falls flat because there have BEEN OTHER dual citizenship presidents AFTER Jefferson and DUAL CITIZENSHIP candidates:
Franklin Roosevelt, William Taft, Harry Truman and John Tyler
So you can't have it both ways. You can't have dual citizenship become inelligible standard for OBAMA yet was eligible for those who came before him.
Sorry, legal history, the LAW and the US CONSTITUTION doesn't support your claims
I suggest thaty ou READ Article 2 once again, as there is only 3 stipulations for being president:
Be over 35
Live in the US for 14 years
Be a natural born citizen.
Please point us where in the US CONSTITUTION it says SPECFICALLY:
1) Must not be a dual citizen
2) Must have two citizen parents.
OOOPS...no where.
You fail once again
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
