Views: 2171

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'M BOGGLED!  Considering the "natural born Citizen" requirement in the Constitution, let me throw a ringer in here!  According to information available on the wikipedia site, the Republican Party is promoting two candidates who don't meet that Constitutional requirement.  The respective fathers of Romney and Santorum were both born outside the United States, Romney's in Mexico and Santorum's in Italy, therefore, lacking some legal shenanigans I'm unaware of, neither of them qualify as a candidate for President.  According to the information I can come up with Newt Gingrich is the ONLY  aspirant for the offfice who meets the Constitutional requirements.  Check it out!


The parents aren't running for office Clarence, the children of Romney/Santorum senior are running.

If Mitt Romney and Rick Santorums parents were both American citizens at the time of Mitt and Rick's birth, then Mitt and Rick are "natural born citizens".  It doesn't matter where the parents were born as long they were citizens which in itself demands they renounce any other allegiances and commit allegiance to the United States.

Harry:  With all due respect I believe you are in error on this point.  It DOES matter where the parents were born and as authority I cite Vatell's "Laws of Nations" which has been historically accepted as the document which strongly influenced the Founders relative to what should be included in our Constitution.  Within that document, "The Laws of Nations", is clearly defined the class of Citizen known as "natural born".  The definition is of an individual whose parents were BOTH BORN in the Country of concern.  That "class" of Citizen, "natural born", MUST have, as parents, two people who were born IN the Country concerned.  The relevance of the understanding in "The Laws of Nations" to this issue is fortified by the fact that Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Charles W.F.Dumas in December of 1775, cited the understandings expounded in the "Laws of Nations" as instructive in the writing of our Constitution.  To say that the parents of Romney and Santorum do not have significance is, in my opinion, to disregard Vatell's instructive document and the influence it had on the Founders and to empower Obama in his illegal occupation of the White House. 

Clarence..US Supreme Court case...Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)  clearly define an American "natural born citizen" as a child born of two United States citizen parents who are citizens at the time of the child's birth.  To my knowledge the constitution nor the Supreme Court say anything about qualification of parents regarding "natural born citizen) beyond they must be America citizens at the time of the birth of a child for the child to be a "natural born citizen".  I don't disregard Vatell, it's just that the US constitution and Supreme Court are the ruling I see it.

I take your point, Harry, however, over the years, Supreme Court "interpretations" have liberalized many aspects of the Constitution, thereby placing us in the position we find ourselves today.  We, as you know, live in an era where lawyers study case law, not the Constitution.  That's a clear example of the proverbial slippery slope.  With reference to the Constitution, if, as you say, you don't disregard Vatell, then Vatell is the ruling factor in understanding what the Founders wanted in this instance.  If that specific issue is disputed then it is time for the Supreme Court to consider it.  Happersett was concerned with a whole different situation and the finding there may not be relevant to this issue.  Just my opinion.  I guess what I'm saying is, 1 for our side - the Constitution embraced Vatell who defined "natural born Citizen" as the Founders understood it.  If case law disagrees, as a peripheral finding in an unassociated case would indicate, then it's time to either fish or cut bait.  Fight for the understanding inherent in our Constitution or forget it and go along with case law and this "Living Constitution" abomination we've been dealing with for years now.  My feeling is if we take the latter course we might just as well throw in the towel now as the game is rigged and those doing the rigging will continue with their progressive-liberalizing agenda unabated. 

I'm by far the least knowledgeable of constitutional things.....but when I see a US Supreme court definition of "natural born citizen" it can only apply to one thing.  Describing what makes a "natural born citizen".  The definition of a "natural born citizen" never changes no matter how it's applied......just my opinion.  I think we're both heading for the same solution.

Good dialoguing with you, Harry. 

"The definition is of an individual whose parents were BOTH BORN in the Country of concern."

You better read Vattel again.   It states "born to parents who are citizens of the country". It does not say parents must be born citizens.

Actually, Harry, it has not yet been established that both parents of either were citizens at the time of the candidates' births. That is being researched.

We do know for sure that Rubio and Jindal are inelibible.

Thanks Mr Miller.......I wasn't intending to provide proof of the parents status, only circumstances that would make Mitt and Rick "natural born citizens". "if" the requirements were met.   Good info though about the confirmation status not completed..........

I'd never heard the charge against Rick Santorum, (my favorite if neither Palin or Bachmann is in) so I checked out the page on wikipedia, it says his father immigrated from Italy when he was 7 yrs old. Nowhere does it mention when his father was naturalized. Since the question is whether or not the father was a citizen at the time of the [would be] candidates birth, this is what we need to know about both Republicans. Everything I read on (as cited in explanation of the Supreme court case in the 1800's) "Natural Born" says parents must be citizen at the time of candidates birth. Not that the parents must have been born in the USA.

(Also, when searching wikipedia, we need to keep in mind the site is an (open) site and when you're on any page a button pops up to "improve this page" thus anyone can change the facts on it, so we need to verify them.)

Then leave! Why are you here! Getting that piece of crap out of OUR Whitehouse, is the most important thing we can be doing. You just need to get you another box of chicken and go to the offical Obummer web site, and make your self at home.



Old Rooster created this Ning Network.

This effort is focused on sacrifice to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Fox News

Tech Notes

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


1. Click on State Groups tab at the top of the page.
2. Find your State Flag
3. Click on Flag.
4. Look for link to join Your State Group near the top of the State Groups page.
5. Click on it.

Follow the Prompts

How to post "live" URL in posts at PFA............. Adding URLs in blog posts that are not "live" is a waste of everyone's time.....
Here's how....if anyone has better guidance send to me.....
First........type your text entry into the post block to include typing or paste the URL you want us to view........when finished with the text, highlight and copy the URL in the text.......then click the "add hyperlink" tool in the B, I, U box just above the text entry, after clicking, a window will open asking for the URL...paste the URL in the box and click "OK". You have now made the URL "live" shows some code before the post is published, it goes away when you "publish post".......


© 2020   Created by Old Rooster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service