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.
What part of owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty do you not understand? What part of obligated to obey foreign laws do you not understand? (source: US State Department)
None. I understand all of that perfectly. (See? That's what actually answering a question looks like.)
Too bad it has nothing to do with the definition of natural born citizen.
And he's been schooling you since the start of this ersatz "debate."
Really? He's the one insisting Jay's letter had no relevance to the Constitution's natural born citizen clause:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Is it your contention that anybody who wrote a letter to somebody who was a Framer has some special authority over the intention of the actual framers themselves?
Because of course, such a contention would be irredeemably goofy.
I just proved HistorianDude wrong. ...with the help of the US Department of Education.
Really? He's the one insisting Jay's letter had no relevance to the Constitution's natural born citizen clause:
I just proved HistorianDude wrong. ...with the help of the US Department of Education.
And he explained why.
I've yet to see you prove anything except that you are incapable of objective reasoning on this issue.
What part of owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty do you not understand?
Which part of my question did you not understand?
Would you please point to that part of the Constitution, federal statute, or Court decision that prohibits a person who is a natural born/ citizen at birth who also holds citizenship in another nation from being President of the United States?
Quote:
Given that the US had just recently fought for and won independence and freedom from a foreign country at the time the Constitution was drafted, it is perfectly reasonable and understandable that the Constitutional Conventionalists wanted to exclude anyone born owing allegiance to a foreign country from serving as POTUS and CIC of the US Military.
Given that every citizen of the United States, including all of the Founders and the Framers of the Constitution, was a British subject and remained in the eyes of the British government a British subject (see War of 1812) it is equally clear that the Framers didn't give a hoot what the British thought about who was a British citizen vs one that was also a citizen of the United States.
By the way you folks who proffer this dual citizenship nonsense need to look into the British Nationality Act of 1948, specifically
Part II - Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies,
Citizenship by birth or descent:
4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:
Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth—
(a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
(b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.
Citizenship by descent.
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:
Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless—
(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or
(b) that person's birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later; or
(c) that person's father is, at the time of the birth, in Crown service under His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom; or
(d) that person is born in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act in which a citizenship law has then taken effect and does not become a citizen thereof on birth.
(2) If the Secretary of State so directs, a birth shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have been registered with his permission notwithstanding that his permission was not obtained before the registration.
What part of owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty do you not understand?
the part that is relevant to our debate.
you continue to use a 2010 definition of "foreigner" to prove your point ( and only a single definition from a single source ). last night i posted the only dictionary definition i could find from john jay's lifetime. it doesn't support your case.
so, which definition of "foreigner" was john jay more likely to be referring to, 2010 or 1828 ?
If at the time of the framing of the Constitution, all framers understood the Natural Born Citizen requirement to mean, a person born in one of the United States of citizen parents of one of said States, what kind of person would have objected to that requirement?
What kind of person today would object to that requirement?
It seems to me to consist of a general, standard of loyalty requirement.
In the world of men, motives are EVERYTHING.
Diverse motives, which define a chaos, can be kept orderly and productive by adherence to an immutable standard.
What kind of person today would object to that requirement?
Actually, I think that quite a few Americans, depending on the candidate, wouldn't be opposed to a naturalized citizen becoming president of the United States.
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.