Would you support a constitutional amendment removing the natural born citizen requirement for office of President? (lawyer, nativist)
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.
I can see you still did not read my link. No reason for me to discuss this further with you.
I did read your link and seeing its not a credible source, I don't know why you'd expect us to give it any weight.
200 years of LEGAL history contradicts everything that is posted at your link.
the history of our defintiion of Natural born Citizen is VERY clear. US v Wong Kim Ark explained it through nearly 9 pages of defining and determing where our term Natural Born Citizen came form.
English Common Law.
US v Wong Kim Ark
Quote:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
Since George Mason had his own views, and it went against his fellow delegate: James Madison's views, it doesn't mean that the founding fathers completely ignored everyone else and other influences, and went with what George Mason believed.
Since its the job of the US Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, I'll go with WHAT THEY said. If George Mason wanted to make sure HIS definition was use, he should have fought harder and made sure the US Constitution said EXACTLY what he wanted.
ETa: Also you may want to find a more credible source that federalistblog.us . Show us real court cases that support your claims.
Yes I support it, You'd have to be something of a moron to discriminate on someone based on place of birth for such a complicated job.
Yes, and Britain appointed a Sunni Muslim and member of the Saud Tribe in Saudi Arabia to rule over the majority Shi'a Muslim Iraqis.
How did that work out for everyone?
You already have foreign countries illegally spending money on elections in the US, and you want to open the presidency up to foreigners knowing that your Congress is owned by the highest bidder.
That's just brilliant.
Who do you think would make a better president, Aristotle Onasis, or Georg Soros?
Or maybe Boris Beresovsky?
Amused...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford Beebe
No, and I'm not a moron for thinking so.
I believe a President should have experienced his (or her) entire lifetime in this country. An American President needs that childhood experience growing up in this country to frame who they become, and how they can relate to people when they are not in positions of power (as adults hold). Look at the past Presidents: Clinton, Obama, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, all were sharply shaped by their respective childhoods in this country. You just can't experience that growing up outside the country.
There were very legitimate reasons for writing this requirement at the time.
That was the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
They had witnessed politics at its finest with the supreme ordained Poop in Rome playing King-Maker, and the big power-houses like Russia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Great Britain playing King-Maker as well.
They didn't want any of that, and they were quite wise, because it continued for two more centuries.
Nothing like having a German run your country. You can ask Romanians how that worked out for them.
Absolutely I would support it under certain conditions.
1) That person must have lived in the USA a certain amount of years
2) Must have been brought here at a young age (not sure how young yet)
3) Must speak English proficiently (referring to the recent controversy)
4) Must have held some other form of political office
5) Be a US citizen obviously
At first I was against it. I thought only people born in the United States should be able to be president but I see the population and how many of us are turning out. Especially my generation.
I think a person who was born in another country from a young age is not that much different than a teenager who was born here. I have a friend who was born in India and she is just as Americanized as all the American born kids because she was 5 or 6 when brought here. She is a ton better than many American borns I know.
Why should intelligent people who just happen to be born somewhere else be denied trying to run for president? It makes no sense. Who knows? The best president may have been someone who was born in Eygpt, Syria, Canada, England or who knows where else?
Why deny them? They could be the one who has the plans to get us out of this mess.
Do you think the President of the United States should be a natural born citizen?
What applies to the president should also apply to senators (born in the u.s.). Or what applies for senators (doesn't have to be born, or even reside that long in, the state they are running in) should also apply to the president. The rules should be the same for both.
It doesn't matter what someone thinks is true ... or thinks the situation should be ... the issue is what the constitution says, and what are the facts.
The framers obviously believed that the were at least two types of US Citizens at the time they incorporated the requirement that the President be a "Natural Born Citizen". Otherwise they would not have made such a stipulation, and would have simply said citizen of the United States, just as it is required to be a member of congress. And this was obviously prior to the 14th Amendment, which created a 3rd type of US Citizen ... commonly referred to now as a 14th Amendment Citizen.
There have been different opinions over the years about the difference between a "US Citizen" and a "Natural Born Citizen", with the most common and frequent interpretation being a person born within the jurisdiction of the United States, of parents owing no allegiance to a foreign power (read: citizens of the United States).
As this applies to Obama ... there are SEVERAL issues which pose valid questions to his "Natural Born Citizen" status. Two of which supersede the question of his birth on US soil (Hawaii). 1) His father owed allegiance to the British Crown, being a British subject at the time Obama was born. 2) Documents that define Obama as an Indonesian citizen during his time residing in Indonesia and attending school there. 3) Claims of his grandmother that he was born in Kenya, as witnessed by her 4) No clear evidence of his birth on United States soil to refute the grandmother's claim 5) That he uses a Social Security number issued from another state other than the one for which he claims to have been born. 6) the strenuous efforts to seal and keep secret all documents pertaining to his personal affairs and status.
At every turn there are question marks ... and it is incumbent upon all who swore an oath to the Constitution to see that those questions are thoroughly and satisfactorily answered.
It doesn't matter what someone thinks is true ... or thinks the situation should be ... the issue is what the constitution says, and what are the facts.
<snip>
What does any of that have to do with the question asked?
Do you think the President of the United States should be a natural born citizen? Why or why not?
Well.. DUH.. YEs..
Lets see... hmm.. some anti-american who has strong political ties to say... Iran came to the US, ran for president and got elected.
Seriously... that is the MAIN reason it is in the constitution. We need a leader who is looking out for the welfare of the US... and its CITIZENS...
Anyone who thinks an immigrant - legal or illegal has the best interest in mind for the US has not seen or heard the disruptions being caused because of people flying the US flag or people celebrating US holidays or the fact that immigrants want to support and fly their own flag and support their country and their politics while sucking off the teat of the American tax payer.
As this applies to Obama ... there are SEVERAL issues which pose valid questions to his "Natural Born Citizen" status. Two of which supersede the question of his birth on US soil (Hawaii).
Quote:
1) His father owed allegiance to the British Crown, being a British subject at the time Obama was born.
yep. his father was kenyan.
Quote:
2) Documents that define Obama as an Indonesian citizen during his time residing in Indonesia and attending school there.
document, singular. a school application filled out when obama was 6 ( in also states his place of birth as hawaii ). this is countered by the fact that he was ineligible for indonesian citizenship under both indonesian and US laws.
Quote:
3) Claims of his grandmother that he was born in Kenya, as witnessed by her
sarah obama never claimed he was born in kenya, she said he was born in hawaii. complete interview transcript here:
4) No clear evidence of his birth on United States soil to refute the grandmother's claim
-state issued certified COLB
-confirming statements from hawaiian DOH
-birth index data
-contemporaneous newspaper accounts
-1967 state department report ( lolo soetoro's visa extention application investigation mentions obama ).
-state issued LFBC
Quote:
5) That he uses a Social Security number issued from another state other than the one for which he claims to have been born.
after 1973 all SS#'s are issued from the central location in baltimore and are not based on applicants place of residence or birth.
Quote:
6) the strenuous efforts to seal and keep secret all documents pertaining to his personal affairs and status.
none of obama's personal records have been sealed. they are protected by the same privacy laws that protect all personal records. no more strenuous effort has been put forward than simply obeying those laws.
Quote:
At every turn there are question marks ...
.... and there are answers.
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.
