It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Boadicea
originally posted by: Halfswede
Had a math PhD. friend joke one day that someone should claim the "natural born" wording would preclude those born by cesarean or induced by drugs from running as well.
LOL! Good he had a sense of humor about it!
There really should be a simple background check that covers this for every candidate and put any of this nonsense to rest up front.
That ^^^ and official definitive criteria established for exactly what a natural born citizen is. This shouldn't be allowed to be a political football with so much at stake -- and at risk!
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Although that said, primaries can be very odd creatures and it might have an impact in the unlikely event of a brokered convention.
That's very true, and I hadn't thought about that. I half suspect that Cruz and Trump have struck a deal for VP if either wins the nomination... but if I'm wrong, or if Trump decides to renege on that deal -- or the pledge not to run as an Independent -- he'll use that as a sledge hammer over their head. Haha! I'd almost like to see that...
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: Boadicea
originally posted by: Halfswede
Had a math PhD. friend joke one day that someone should claim the "natural born" wording would preclude those born by cesarean or induced by drugs from running as well.
LOL! Good he had a sense of humor about it!
There really should be a simple background check that covers this for every candidate and put any of this nonsense to rest up front.
That ^^^ and official definitive criteria established for exactly what a natural born citizen is. This shouldn't be allowed to be a political football with so much at stake -- and at risk!
There is enough precedent to show that all of these named are natural born citizens. There is no longer an argument.
originally posted by: reldra
]
Some of our first presidents were presidents before the constitution, as we know it, was even drafted. If you want to go back even further. So, they, would not be eligible for the offices they held.
originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: AnonnieMuss
Some of our first presidents were presidents before the constitution, as we know it, was even drafted. If you want to go back even further. So, they, would not be eligible for the offices they held.
originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: Boadicea
originally posted by: Halfswede
Had a math PhD. friend joke one day that someone should claim the "natural born" wording would preclude those born by cesarean or induced by drugs from running as well.
LOL! Good he had a sense of humor about it!
There really should be a simple background check that covers this for every candidate and put any of this nonsense to rest up front.
That ^^^ and official definitive criteria established for exactly what a natural born citizen is. This shouldn't be allowed to be a political football with so much at stake -- and at risk!
There is enough precedent to show that all of these named are natural born citizens. There is no longer an argument.
'Natural law' is not based on precedent or even majority opinion. It is universal. Precedent would narrow the definition of the term and it is meant to be broad. 'Precedent' turns 'natural law' in 'positive law.'
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: Boadicea
originally posted by: Halfswede
Had a math PhD. friend joke one day that someone should claim the "natural born" wording would preclude those born by cesarean or induced by drugs from running as well.
LOL! Good he had a sense of humor about it!
There really should be a simple background check that covers this for every candidate and put any of this nonsense to rest up front.
That ^^^ and official definitive criteria established for exactly what a natural born citizen is. This shouldn't be allowed to be a political football with so much at stake -- and at risk!
There is enough precedent to show that all of these named are natural born citizens. There is no longer an argument.
'Natural law' is not based on precedent or even majority opinion. It is universal. Precedent would narrow the definition of the term and it is meant to be broad. 'Precedent' turns 'natural law' in 'positive law.'
Yes and positive law is the ones we follow. There were 'intentions' that can be interpreted differently, but they do not translate into law. That is why we still argue over what, exactly, an organized militia is.
Again, most of the first presidents...even the ones before Washington, using that thinking, would have been ineligible to hold office.
originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: Boadicea
originally posted by: Halfswede
Had a math PhD. friend joke one day that someone should claim the "natural born" wording would preclude those born by cesarean or induced by drugs from running as well.
LOL! Good he had a sense of humor about it!
There really should be a simple background check that covers this for every candidate and put any of this nonsense to rest up front.
That ^^^ and official definitive criteria established for exactly what a natural born citizen is. This shouldn't be allowed to be a political football with so much at stake -- and at risk!
There is enough precedent to show that all of these named are natural born citizens. There is no longer an argument.
'Natural law' is not based on precedent or even majority opinion. It is universal. Precedent would narrow the definition of the term and it is meant to be broad. 'Precedent' turns 'natural law' in 'positive law.'
Yes and positive law is the ones we follow. There were 'intentions' that can be interpreted differently, but they do not translate into law. That is why we still argue over what, exactly, an organized militia is.
Again, most of the first presidents...even the ones before Washington, using that thinking, would have been ineligible to hold office.
And again, that's why there is the grandfather clause, "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."
On this one issue, the Constitution defers to natural law. It is an anomalous law, so to speak but the term 'natural' is a reference to natural law and/or natural rights...the Bill of Rights was built on natural law and natural rights. The drafters were not looking for one all encompassing 'positive' or written definition...hence the word 'natural.'
a reply to: reldra
The Republicans deserve getting a hard time though, for how they went after Obama, who was actually born here.
originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: reldra
The Republicans deserve getting a hard time though, for how they went after Obama, who was actually born here.
Ted Cruz was also a birther. Now he's going to have to defend his birth status. It's funny how his attack on Obama's birth origin is now coming around and biting him in the @ss! Poor Ted.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: reldra
]
Some of our first presidents were presidents before the constitution, as we know it, was even drafted. If you want to go back even further. So, they, would not be eligible for the offices they held.
Are you referring to the Presidents of the Continental Congress? If so, all but one were born in the Colonies and would have been eligible to serve as President of the United States.
originally posted by: reldra
The theory goes, that they weren't US citizens at the time, colonies weren't the US. I know, it's not a strong argument, people on the internet argue it anyway. besides the fact that they had parents that weren't born in the colonies....it goes on and on.
originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
a reply to: reldra
Correct. No court can determine who is or is not a natural born citizen. Our courts only have jurisdiction over state or federal and constitutional laws. They don't have jurisdiction to interpret natural law. It is actually the one law where the people have the right to rise up against the government for violating natural law. Something the constitutional drafters actually recommended.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: reldra
The theory goes, that they weren't US citizens at the time, colonies weren't the US. I know, it's not a strong argument, people on the internet argue it anyway. besides the fact that they had parents that weren't born in the colonies....it goes on and on.
I see. Well they would be wrong as evidenced by the other poster pointing out the grandfather clause for citizenship requirements.
originally posted by: reldra
Not sure they would want 'the people' to be 'rising up' in this way, for this topic.
originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
originally posted by: reldra
Not sure they would want 'the people' to be 'rising up' in this way, for this topic.
Disagree. They would likely say we are obligated to revolt and institute a new government because they specifically deferred to natural law on the issue, they put enforcement of the law in the hands of the People, and to defy the natural law is a blatant national security risk.