Politics Birther 2.0?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Users who are viewing this thread

you have readings that show they annulled the 14th amendment? Or that contradicts article II section I?

No where in the constitution does it say anything about a persons being a citizen ONLY if one of their parents is a citizen at the time of that persons birth. Nor does it say anything about the naturalization status of the candidates parents.

These are the requirements:

  • The individual must have been born in the United States or born to a parent who is a citizen of the United States;
  • The individual must be 35 years of age or older;
  • The individual must have been a resident in the United States for at least 14 years.

Also, from the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

So, I'm eager to see this reading....

"natural" is simply part of the hyphenated adjective "natural-born", which stands in contrast to "naturalized" in defining the type of citizenship required. So no, the word is not superfluous; it means exactly what @julius says it means.


A question or thought for you guys to ponder.
If the meaning a Natural Born Citizen is as simple as you wish to make it, Why then would the founders find a need to exempt themselves in the Constitution from this requirement? There was no need, but for Hamilton all were born here.


The answer does lied in the definition of Natural Born as written in Natural Law.
 
Last edited:
A question or thought for you guys to ponder.
If the meaning a Natural Born Citizen is as simple as you wish to make it, Why then would the founder find a need to exempt themselves in the Constitution from the requirement? The was no need, but for Hamilton all were born here.


The answer does lied in the definition of Natural Born as written in Natural Law.

she's one of us. let it go.
 
Back
Top