Neither the Constitution nor the writings of our founders made it a requirement for the President to be of a certain faith. However, they did make it a requirement that he be a natural born citizen[/b]Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
Printable View
Neither the Constitution nor the writings of our founders made it a requirement for the President to be of a certain faith. However, they did make it a requirement that he be a natural born citizen[/b]Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
This is the most interesting and the most intelligent comment I have ever seen on this issue.Quote:
Furthermore, if I were chosing and grooming a future president to carry out my nefarious plans, the next to last child I would have chosen in 1961 would be a African-appearing boy from a 'broken home" (which was a very big deal back then, I can testify from personal experience. People assumed you were inherently, irretrievably flawed, i.e. damaged goods). The only type of child even less likely for that role would be a African-appearing girl baby. That is why I find the birth announcements in the paper to be so reassuring that he really was born in Hawaii. While politics is inherently sinister, I don't get the feeling that anyone was up to anything concerning him back then.
A good way to think about Vattel is to regard him as a chronicler of what the thinking of the era was, on the topic of citizenship, but not as the "Great Decider" who was in any position to "lay down the law" and expect the Framer to slavishly follow his writings.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
The Framers had ideas of their own. George Washington in particular had personally followed an evolutionary path in how his subordinates were to handle enlistments and promotions within the military ranks fighting the Revolutionary War. Those seeking their liberty/independence had their own experientially developed notions of 'natural born' and it was consistent with an era in which dual citizenship was basically unknown in the law.
Interesting information about what the Framers intended comes more from them than from Vattel. For example:
Going back to 1787 when the qualifications for POTUS were being written, it might be noteworthy that the first draft dated June 18, 1787 from Alexander Hamilton would have read as follows:
“ No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
Then came the July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention. Jay wrote:
“ Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
Obviously, the two proposed requirements appear to have been regarded as two different things. Citizenship at birth versus "natural born citizen" and the Framers elected for the latter. As a "strong check" like future SCOTUS Justice John Jay had proposed in his letter to Washington.
I've already come around to the view that Obama is a NBC but not for the simple-minded "citizen at birth" arguments that some of his supporters endorse, because I think that those arguments dangerously undermine what ought to be a definitional requirement of "sole U.S. citizenship" at birth for any future POTUS.
Because I respect your comments so much, I hesitate to say I hope you are wrong, but that is my thinking - I do hope you are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
And, if Obama IS really an NBC, why is he hiding all of his personal information? Didn't he get the memo that everything is OK?
My guess would be that some advisor is telling him something like, "Don't stoop to get involved in this. It would only add an aura of legitimacy to the issue."
OK, that's fair. But behind the scenes, he is still hiding all of his own history. How can we build a memorial to where he was born, or how can we build a library for him if there is nothing to put into it?Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
Part of the problem is modern privacy laws. Everybody's history just got a lot more hidden over the past decade. They just haven't noticed it yet. It hasn't become an issue with most people.
On this point I disagree. Almost every facet of our lives is now on a database somewhere. I've had law enforcement tell me there is no personal privacy anymore, and I'm almost in agreement with them. Until the subject of Obama comes up, and he, through his power and his money is able to hide his privacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
The idea that government actually knows a lot more about every one of us (who is poor, legal, and honest) than we are aware of, is very threatening. Only criminals, public servants, and the very rich seem to have maintained their privacy.
Doesn't this beg the question why we shouldn't all become invisible to government as our fearless leader has done? Why is Obama so privileged? Do we have a two class society in America?
Yes but the databases are not publically accessible. At least not the accurate ones. I tried tracking a rent skipper - only partial success.
He who controls the data controls the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyRoss
The knowledge and understanding that only government has the information, to the exclusion of the people, would lead to the conclusion that the people are subject to, or subservient to, the government, and that is clearly wrong in America. Might work in China or Russia, but doesn't work in America.
One more argument for becoming invisible to government if we are to remain a free people.