Comment: The Supreme Court has already

(See in situ)


The Supreme Court has already

The Supreme Court has already decided the matter in Minor v. Happersett. Did you not read my post carefully? If you disagree with my assertion, then show me I am wrong and how. You state that
"The voting public determines the constitutionality of a political question." That is totally incorrect. That is what the Courts are for. If we can all make up our own minds about what the law is (as opposed to whether or not we agree or will comply with it, which is another questions altogether), we have anarchy. Is that what you want?

Your point about being born a natural born citizen (NBC), moving to Germany and returning back to the US is interesting. But clearly, common sense and logic suggest that one can lose his US citizenship, whether it is NBC or not, but IF one has NOT lost his US citizenship by moving to Germany, then he is STILL a US citizen upon his return, and I would think he would be eligible for President IF and only IF his US citizenship was NBC to begin with.

But your assertion that "The constitution is silent about whether the person has to be a current citizen" is just plain wrong. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly states that "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President." Inotherwords, YOU HAVE TO BE (not had to have been) a NBC, ie. present, NOT past, to be eligible to serve as President. I think you may be assuming from the phrase "natural born citizen" that you just need to have been BORN a "natural born citizen" to be eligible for US President. If that were true, then anyone with foreign citizenship could serve as US President as long as he was born as a NBC. That makes no sense and our founders could not possibly have wanted that, could they? If the language had stated that "No person except one born a natural born citizen ..." or "except one born a citizen", you might have a point, but it doesn't.

Your point about the "OR" instead if "AND and "The commas in that clause make it ambiguious at best" suggests to me that you are simply misreading the language. Our founders were not stupid men and they used the language and grammar of the time carefully and with precision. Because you are confused doesn't mean they or those who ratified the Constitution, or others, are also confused.
The reason for the "grandfather" phrase "OR a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution" was to enable that generation of men who were born with British or other foreign citizenship, and could not have been born with US citizenship, let alone "natural born" US citizenship because there was no United States of America until about 1776, and therefore could not possibly have been "natural born citizens") to serve as President provided they were merely CITIZENS at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (1789).

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?