Last week it was a “Zombies Ahead” electronic billboard hacking in Fort Mill, South Carolina. This week the Arizona “birther bill,” killed in committee, has crawled out of the grave as proponents plan to attach the content to some other bill being actively considered, reports the Associated Press. It’s sort of a ghoulish parasite scenario.
The Arizona bill is one of several “birther bills” engineered to exclude Barack Obama through the addition of requirements beyond those of the US Constitution. The Arizona bill requires that candidates for President and Vice President must be born in a hospital in order to be added to the ballot. This requirement doesn’t actually exclude Barack Obama, but it does invalidate the standard birth certificate from the State of Hawaii that doesn’t list hospital and physician names. Another non-constitutional requirement, that candidates never had dual citizenship, probably would exclude Obama, who could at one time have claimed citizenship in the UK and Colonies through his father.
I need some ibuprofen. Banging my head on the desk has given me a rather awful headache.
Here’s a related article from the Washington Post. Note that the head of the Phoenix tea party casually claims that ““The term natural-born’ has nothing to do” with location of birth.”
PHOENIX — Legislation that would require proof of U.S. birth from presidential candidates is intersecting in Arizona with the question of whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are entitled to automatic citizenship.
The proposed legislation on documentation requirements for candidates asks for information on the citizenship of a candidate’s parents. Tea party backers said Wednesday they believe people are only natural-born citizens if their parents are citizens.
“The term natural-born’ has nothing to do” with location of birth, said Jeff Lichter of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party.
A Senate committee on Wednesday endorsed the bill after deleting the provision on citizenship of a candidate’s parents, but it remains in a version approved Tuesday by a House panel.
President Barack Obama’s name was hardly mentioned during either committee hearing, but Democratic Rep. Eric Meyer of Paradise Valley said it’s apparent the issue “still stems in some way from the last election.”
Hawaii officials have certified that Obama was born in that state, but “birthers” have demanded additional proof, asserting that Obama could have been born in his father’s home country, Kenya. Obama’s mother was an American citizen.
“Clearly this bill is not an attempt to deal with the current president other than to say that anyone running for president must meet the constitutional requirements,” said Rep. Carl Seel, R-Anthem.
The candidate qualifications bill would authorize Arizona’s secretary of state to keep a presidential candidate off the state’s ballot if the candidate or party doesn’t provide required information on the candidate’s eligibility.
Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor, said there’s an emerging thread in legislation on presidential candidates’ qualifications “that somebody who is a dual citizen at birth is ineligible for the presidency.”
However, Spiro said, “there’s no evidence that an individual has to be born to U.S. citizens to be eligible for the presidency.”
The notion that a presidential candidate’s parents must have been American citizens when the candidate was born troubled Sen. Frank Antenori, chairman of the Senate Government Reform Committee. The Tucson Republican said that would mean his American-born father, an Army veteran and the son of legal immigrants from Italy, couldn’t run.
Last week, the state Senate rejected illegal immigration bills that included measures intended to produce a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on who is entitled to U.S. citizenship at birth under the 14th Amendment. Supporters argue that the amendment doesn’t apply to the children of illegal immigrants because such families don’t owe sole allegiance to the U.S.
“The law of the land is very clear. The question we’ve been facing … is whether we want to reset the definition of natural-born citizen,” said Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. “I would submit we did (decide) that last week.”
Sinema, of Phoenix, said as many as eight prior American presidents wouldn’t have been eligible for that office because they had one or more noncitizen parents.
Arizona legislators supporting the legislation said there are valid questions on presidential qualifications dating back to Mexico-born George Romney’s 1968 presidential candidacy.
“This is a situation that I think needs to be finally put to bed, finally have the accounting somewhere, and if we start it, it may roll up to the federal level,” said Rep. Steve Urie, R-Gilbert.
Previous Arizona bills on proof of presidential candidates’ U.S. birth died earlier in the legislation session, but supporters are reviving the issue with broader versions.
They’ve added a provision to require that all candidates for public offices in Arizona provide an affidavit and “necessary documents to show” that they meet the qualifications.
“It’s essential that as candidates running for office that we bring back the integrity to the office and that we show that we qualify to serve in the position that we’re running for,” said Republican Rep. Judy Burges of Skull Valley.
It’s sort of a ghoulish parasite scenario.
>>>>not unlike many other bills on state and Federal level, obviously OP has no clue about how legislation is made in this nation.
engineered to exclude Barack Obama through the addition of requirements beyond those of the US Constitution
>>>how so, the current SB says NOTHING about parents, only show the long form original birth certificate. Oh yeah….now I get it. BO stinks because HE DOES NOT HAVE ONE. Is that what you are saying then? If not then explain your comment about how this bill will exclude OBAMA? Be specific.
Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor, said there’s an emerging thread in legislation on presidential candidates’ qualifications “that somebody who is a dual citizen at birth is ineligible for the presidency.”
However, Spiro said, “there’s no evidence that an individual has to be born to U.S. citizens to be eligible for the presidency.”
>>>oh really Spiro. Ever hear of Vattel and Law of Nations (which is mentioned in the Constitutution , so we know for sure that framers read it), or Patrick Leahy who said as much during the McCain resolution, or Bingham who authored the 14th ammendment, among other sources. I guess only a fool or obot would think George Washington would turn over the presidency to a subject of British (or something worse like son of Ahmamidgetman of Iran, or Chavez, or Castro, etc.). Yep if this were a GOP candidate be sure that the OBOTS would be singing a different tune.
So, they continue using the dual citizenship argument. Do they really believe this guy does not have the right to stand for the US President?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ29CpnePlQ&feature=related
May be Arizonans do not like what he sings about “all God’s children”, of course.
Have you ever heard of Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”. That’s where the framers got the term Constitutional term Law of Nations. Specifically, Book 4 Chapter 5, “Of Offencies Against the Law of Nations“ And what does Justice Blackstone say is one of the “offenses against the law of nations” – piracy. And what does he say is piracy – a felony on the high seas.
Does that sound familar?
So the framers were using the Laws of England as their guide. I guess Professor Spiro has done alittle more reading then you have.
Now go and get your Vattel and see what he says about piracy and felonies on the high seas.
I hate to tell the chairman of the Governmental reform committee this, but it likely means that you are not eligible to be President either, according to this bill, because you’ve had dual citizenship.
Italy grants citizenship to the children of citizens. Your father was born to citizens of Italy, which makes him a citizen of Italy. Neither Italy or the United States forces you to give up dual citizenship, which means that he’s still a citizen of Italy. Now, since you are the child of an Italian Citizen, that means that you’re also an Italian Citizen. Therefore, you have dual citizenship, and therefore cannot run for the President under this bill.
Is Obotsrunamok kidding, or are they nearly too stupid to breath? Claiming that Vattel’s Law of Nations” is mentioned in the constitution is one of the most pathetic claims I’ve heard in a while.
Smarter birthers, please.
Have you ever heard of Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”.
>>>
and Blackstone wasn’t around in the 1700s but Vattel was. Washington and John Jay both had copies of Vattel.
A plethora of evidence supporting Vattel over Blackstone
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=blackstone+versus+vattel&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=91f35080109ff7ec
claiming that vattle Law of Nations is mentioned in constitution is pathetic…
oh really ??
that is trouble with obots/liberals in general 1- they don’t take civics anymore 2- and if they did they certianly didn’t pay attention
Directly from the Constitutuion
8 Cl. 10 of the Constitution for the United States delegates the power to Congress to “define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations”. .
Law of Nations was very much EVIDENT in the minds of the FRAMERS of our Constitutution. Again I say if it were a BUSH or REAGAN you OBOTS would be ALL over it.
Racist ???? BAH that is your last resort as usual.
FAIL!
Are you really that stupid, ORA? What am I saying…you are a delusional birther…of course you are!
Oh the irony of your recommendation to take civics class! Obviously, you never have… or you failed miserably.
Here, try learning what “Law Of Nations” in that particular phrase of the Constitution means. HINT: It has NOTHING to do with Vattel, you fool:
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/law_of_nations.htm
You’ve just been given an education. Checkmate.
Then how is it that one of the framers, Charles C Pinckey studied law under Justice Blackstone at Oxford University?
And how is it that his Commentaries was read at the Constitutional Convention, “Mr. DICKENSON mentioned to the House that on examining Blackstone’s Commentaries, he found that the terms, “ex post facto” related to criminal cases only; that they would not consequently restrain the States from retrospective laws in civil cases, and that some further provision for this purpose would be requisite.” from Madison’s Debate in the Federal Convention, August 29th, 1787?
Have you ever heard of James Madison? Shortly after he helped write the Constitution, he gave a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. Nad in that speech he said,
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States;” May 22nd, 1789
You see, here in the United States, place of birth is what determines allegiance not your parents.
Wow are you stupid. Law of Nations is a general term that has been around long before Vattel. Saying they were referencing Vattel’s book which wasn’t translated into English until after the Constitution was written. Also in the original edition it did not contain the phrase Natural Born Citizen.
But since you want to claim it was referencing a book then how do you know they weren’t referencing Christian Wolff’s Law of Nations?
http://www.libertyfund.org/details.aspx?id=2117
Which came out before Vattel’s book. Also as mentioned above it was Blackstones chapter that would have been referenced according to you birthers. As the title of the chapter was: Of Offenses Against the Law of Nations. Which is what that line in the constitution says.
I just love how your link references birther sites.
If the founders were looking to Vattel why aren’t his ideas incorporated in the constitution?
Book I
§ 114. Freedom of philosophical discussion.
I speak of the freedom of philosophical discussion, which is the soul of the republic of letters. … I know that liberty has its proper bounds — that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion.
§ 127. Of religion internal and external.
Religion consists in the doctrines concerning the Deity and the things of another life, and in the worship appointed to the honour of the Supreme Being. So far as it is seated in the heart, if is an affair of conscience, in which every one ought to be directed by his own understanding: but so far as it is external, and publicly established, it is an affair of state
§ 129. Public establishment of religion.
But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society. The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority. If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation, in her national capacity is doubtless obliged to serve and honour him (Prelim. § 5), And as this important duty is to be discharged by the nation in whatever manner she judges best, — to the nation it belongs to determine what religion she will follow, and what public worship she thinks proper to establish.
§ 141. The sovereign’s authority over the ministers of religion.
To the prince’s inspection of the affairs and concerns of religion we have joined an authority over its ministers: without the latter power, the former would be nugatory and ineffectual; — they are both derived from the same principle. It is absurd, and contrary to the first foundations of society, that any citizens should claim an independence of the sovereign authority, in offices of such importance to the repose, the happiness, and safety of the state. This is establishing two independent powers in the same society — an unfailing source of division, disturbance, and ruin. There is but one supreme power in the state; the functions of the subordinate powers vary according to their different objects: — ecclesiastics, magistrates, and commanders of the troops, are all officers of the republic, each in his own department; and all are equally accountable to the sovereign.
§ 240. Taxes.
If the income of the public property, or of the domain, is not sufficient for the public wants, the state supplies the deficiency by taxes. These ought to be regulated in such a manner, that all the citizens may pay their quota in proportion to their abilities, and the advantages they reap from the society.
§ 254. Private property.
We have but a few words to say with respect to private property: every proprietor has a right to make what use he pleases of his own substance, and to dispose of it as he pleases, when the rights of a third person are not involved in the business. The sovereign, however, as the father of his people, may and ought to set bounds to a prodigal, and to prevent his running to ruin, especially if this prodigal be the father of a family.(65) But he must take care not to extend this right of inspection so far as to lay a restraint on his subjects in the administration of their affairs — which would be no less injurious to the true welfare of the state than to the just liberty of the citizens. The particulars of this subject belong to public law and politics
G you should know better than to ask questions you know the answers to
I’ve mentioned this before, but the founders cited various works in their writings. We can then count up the number of times they cited those works to get a general sense of which were more influential. Someone did that.
1. St. Paul
2. Montesquieu
3. Blackstone
…
10. Pufendorf
11. Lord Coke
…
15. Grotius
…
28. Machiavelli
29. Vattel
So, yeah, Vattel wasn’t more popular among the Founders than Blackstone. He wasn’t even more popular than other scholars of the “Law of Nations” who wrote about citizenship!
And I never said that it did mention parents. I said that it mentioned “dual citizenship” at least the latest copy available to me does.
At such time as I have a revised version of the bill, and find my article is in error, then I will fix it.
Find me a Civics book published before 2008 that agrees with you, or be banned as a liar. You’re being put in moderation and no further comment from you will appear until you either provide the text or apologize to the community for lying.
Vattel wasn’t mentioned in any civics classes. I doubt most birthers even heard of him before 2008. So show us a textbook that even mentions Vattel or what you think his views on Citizenship are. Also its been pointed out time and time again Vattel in the original french context has nothing to do with the citizenship of the parents.
I think that no one would make such an obviously false remark unless they were just trying to stir up trouble. The four volumes of Blackstone’s Commentaries were published 1765-1769.
The Continental Congress, in 1765, drafted an argument to be presented to the House of Lords in England:
The Federalist Papers mention Blackstone 3 times, de Vattel zero.
By the way, the Continental Congress passed a resolution on October 19, 1765 containing:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolu65.asp
Uhhh, well who did Washington turn the presidency over to? John Adams, former British subject.
In October 1774, the Continental Congress wrote a declaration that says in part:
“That the inhabitants of the English Colonies in North America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following Rights:
1. That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent.
2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural born subjects within the realm of England.”
So by the Laws of Nature, the founders were natural born subjects.
Just as I said, ObotsRunAmuck ran full steam into the wall of stupidity. Followed by a heap of lies and insults.
Are people with poor reading comprehension more likely to become birthers, or is it because those with poor reading comprehension tend to suffer from a lesser intellect, making them more susceptible to believing birther nonsense?
I wish ObotsRunAmuck could tell us why he/she is so stupid.
That’s the real puzzle – how people come to have such unshakeable faith in the faulty reasoning engendered by their Obama Derangement Syndrome…
If he was capable of knowing why he is so stupid and/or then informing others why he was so stupid……he wouldn’t actually be that stupid……but then that would mean……oh what the heck…..forgetaboutit lol.
Ah-ha! I knew it! Zombie Vattel rises from the grave!
Vattel never meant what you dumb birthers believe he did. Calling on Vattel to boost your argument will only doom it faster. Refer to previous postings here for accurate & annotated translation of what Vattel actually wrote.
Even if that were true, Vattel still does NOT disqualify Obama from being a “natural-born citizen.” You are so dense that you would eat dog kibbles if I stuck a kraft label on them.
God! Not this stupid argument again. Are birthers really this stupid? As it has been said probably a good thousand times here, “Law of Nations” simply means customary international law. It is not a reference to a book. Particularly a book that as has been pointed out, fundamentally contradicts our Constitution in many places.
And if it is a reference to a book why isn’t Congress legislating against ladders? Idiot birthers!
[content deleted. Doc.]
I have real civics books, ones published over 50 years ago before the liberals got a hold of them and started to twist, spin, scrub, and change the definitions of tradition terms (like marriage) to suit their sick and twisted agenda.
[Well, cough up one of those civics textbooks that says a President has to have citizen parents, or go elsewhere. Doc]
Real books? Really? Like real America? Okay then simply tell us which books these are? Are these the same books that would instruct you to duck and cover during a nuke explosion?
Obots:
For well over a year I have seen birthers claim things like “Back in the 40s and 50s history/civics/government textbooks used to talk about requiring citizen parents but now they don’t say that anymore.” It isn’t unusual for someone to claim they remember seeing it in the textbook they used “Way back when”.
However, to date I haven’t seen many people going out and finding said textbooks and showing them. There’s bound to be some copies still out there.
Until then, I’m going to doubt the story. I place it in the same pile as the common birther claim “Back in the 60s it was easy to get a Hawaiian birth certificate that said you were born there even if you weren’t”. Whenever someone says “OK, then show one”, the subject just gets dropped.
I recall that someone posted a list of quotations from old civics texts somewhere on this site, but I can’t find it – can anyone else remember where it is?
the IRLI , among others
“As early s 1862 rep. John Bingham acknowledged:
“”…All from other lands, who by the terms of laws and compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born of parents within the Republic owing allegiance to no other sovereignity, are natural born citizens. “”
[That’s not a civics book. Doc.]
another one
Franco Scardino – this one is for libs entitled The Complete Idiot’s Guide to US Government and Politics
Qualifications The president must be a natural-born citizen, meaning he or she must be born in the United States or have parents who are American citizens. The president must also be at least 35 years old. …â–¼
[That says “or”, meaning that parents are not a requirement for persons born in the United States. Doc.]
another one by
JC Thomas
http://books.google.com/books?id=L6ERAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA40&dq=born+%22american+soil%22+president&hl=en&ei=4Om1TIbhFsP58Ab3vbDMDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=10&ved=0CGAQuwUwCQ#v=onepage&q=born%20%22american%20soil%22%20president&f=false
William Lasser – 1999
American Politics: the Enduring Constitution
n fact, almost anyone can become president. The Constitution provides only that the president be a natural born citizen of the United States (that is, a person born in the United States or whose parents are United States citizens. [That says “or”, meaning that parents are not a requirement for persons born in the United States. Doc.] (how much of this message with you censor ///???)) [None of it. Doc.]
Clairece Feagin Our United States Government -1999
….the President must be born in the United States or have parents who are US citizens…..
[That says “or”, meaning that parents are not a requirement for persons born in the United States. So you have not found any Civics textbook that says that a US President must have citizen parents. All your textbooks say that birth within the country is enough. Doc.]
Didn’t Dr Hate put out an open call last year for people to find civics books from the 50s and 60s claiming that they must say born of Two citizen parents on US soil only
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CD8QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdrkatesview.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F10%2F06%2Fthe-usurpathons-october-surpris%2F&ei=LKSLTYqLHI6w0QGS5aXfDQ&usg=AFQjCNEI339u_uqS_b8uvM2illn1RA33Jg
I dont think she ever found anything.
You might look at these:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/11/reality-check/#comment-77816
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/10/texas-birther-gets-visit-from-secret-service/#comment-72190
and William Rawle’s A View of the Constitution was used as a textbook at West Point. Rawle wrote:
When I see a really important comment I added to the featured comments page, menu Features | Comments. The link from ballantine with the textbooks is there.
Wow! That was a pretty big fail – I hope it doesn’t feel as painful as it looked… That’s the best example of hoisting oneself on ones own petard I’ve seen in quite a while… 😉
I often find there’s a direct correlation between how poorly someone understands history, context, and grammar and how likely they are to be an unrepentant “eligibility skeptic” (that is, Birther)
Civics book? Heck, Vattel isn’t even mentioned in most law books…including most international law books! Out of the 4 international law text books on my book shelf, there is less than a paragraph about Vattel (and 0 references to him between 2 Constitutional law books).
ORA doesn’t need a civics class, she/he needs to take some reading comprehension classes.
Nice Doc. Didn’t know that feature existed… Can you add Greg’s comment with the list of influences in the founding father’s writings to your comments section?
Jeeze Doc, way to undersell… what’s the matter, couldn’t you find a ‘Beware of the Leopard’ sign?
Seriously, thanks – that’s exactly the comment I was looking for and that’s a great feature…
Here are others
J Varkan – US Constitutional Republic, 1907
M Marion We the People of United States- 1912
[I deleted the citations because I could not verify either of them and the second one appeared to be taken out of context. Neither title appears at Worldcat.org. I’m not going to publish citations from a known liar without a way to verify them. Doc.]
btw Law of Nations was referred to Constitution, they certainly didn’t refer to …..Blackstone’s Common English law did they, as a source for penalties?
I stand by my original statement , unless someone can provide a reference from that time frame per Blackstone or some other entities as to penalities [sic] to be provided (instead of your usual insults and spin/twist). Also, note Law of Nations was in bold letter capitalized, in the original. So the framers could have used another term. So, prove me wrong, and list another reference from that era that uses :Law of Nations, that could possibly serve as a reference for this term in the Constitution. Remember at the time there was no League of Nations or UN. You can’t think in modern terms.
[Blackstone’s Commentaries contain a section titled: Of Offenses Against the Law of Nations, the exact wording in the Constitution. I would also point out that capitalization in the Constitution doesn’t indicate a book title reference, since every noun in the Constitution is capitalized. ObotsRunAmuck’s assertion that the text is in bold face is just a garden variety lie. Look for yourself. And for that, the ban is now permanent. Liars are just time wasters who add nothing to the discussion. Doc.]
A quick search on google books turns up tons of books defining presidential eligibility for that period or any period. For example:
.
The PTA magazine: Volume 48
National Congress of Parents and Teachers – 1953 – Snippet view
The President must be thirty-five years of age. born in the United States, and fourteen years a resident within the United States. 32. He is commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, grants pardons, calls extra sessions of Congress, …
Civics for citizens
Stanley Ellwood Dimond, Elmer F. Pflieger – 1965 – 636 pages – Snippet view
A natural-born citizen is one born in the United States or in one of its possessions. It is generally believed that a person born in a foreign country whose parents were American citizens could become President, but this issue …
The American Constitution
Charles Herman Pritchett – 1968 – 840 pages – Snippet view
Every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen and, of course, a natural-born citizen.
The American review
Johns Hopkins University. Bologna Center. European Center of American Studies – 1960 – Snippet view
The Constitutional qualifications for President are astonishingly simple: he must be born in the United States and be thirty-five years of age. These are the only qualifications: on all the other matters that have commanded so much …
American Government: democracy at work
Robert White – 1961 – 707 pages – Snippet view
Qualifications: Who Can Be President? The legal qualifications for the President as set by the Constitution (Article II, Section 5) are only three in number: the President must be ( 1 ) a native-born citizen, (2) 35 years of age, …
handbook for naturalization workers
Esther Sterna Beckwith, Helen M. Katz, National Council of Jewish Women – 1942 – 76 pages – Snippet view
Who may be a President or Vice-President of the United States? Any native-born citizen, 35 years of age or over, may be elected President or Vice-President of the United States. 38. What are some of the duties of the President? …
Machinists’ monthly journal: Volume 49
International Association of Machinists – 1937 – Snippet view
Senator Wagner (NY) never tried to get the Democratic nomination for President. He is a naturalized citizen (born in Germany) and the constitution requires that a President must be born in the United States. To 0. …
American business abroad: Ford on six continents
Mira Wilkins, Frank Ernest Hill – 1964 – 541 pages – Snippet view
“I can never be King of England,” he pointed out, “but if I had been born in the United States I could be President.” He was a furious worker, exacting but just, and quickly took charge of the Ford Motor Company’s business affairs. …
Children’s activities
Child Training Association, Children’s activities for home and school – 1959 – Snippet view
Every boy born in the United States has the same chance to become president of our great country as had George Washington and
Building our democracy
Vanza Nielsen Devereaux, Homer Ferris Aker, Chester D. Babcock – 1962 – 381 pages – Snippet view
The President must be at least thirty-five years old. He must have lived in the United States for fourteen years. He must be a native-born citizen. … A native-born citizen is a person born in the United States, its territories, …
Our Federal Government: how it works: an introduction to the …
Patricia C. Acheson – 1958 – 168 pages – Snippet view
In the original Constitution there was no limitation placed on the number of terms one President might have. … Anyone aspiring to the highest office in the land must have been born in the United States, and he must be at least …
Civics for Americans [teachers annotated ed
Nadine I. Clark – 1961 – 570 pages – Snippet view
Native-born citizens are those born in the United States or in its possessions. Those born in other countries are also … Only native-born citizens are eligible to be elected as the highest officers in the land, the President and …
Encyclopedia Americana: Volume 9
1965 – Snippet view
The president and the vice president are elected for four years by direct, secret ballot and may not be reelected within 4 years after the expiration of their terms. Only native-born citizens at least 35 years of age are eligible for …
How to become an American citizen
American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born – 1938 – 30 pages – Snippet view
For how many years are the President and Vice- President elected? They are elected for four years. Who may be President or Vice-President of the United States? Any native-born citizen, 35 years of age or over, may be elected President …
Rise of the American Nation: Volume 2
Lewis Paul Todd, Merle Eugene Curti – 1966 – 880 pages – Snippet view
*I Qualifications for President: ( 1 ) A native-born citizen resident of the United States for at least 14 years, of the United States. (2) At least 35 years of age. (3) A f term of office: 4 years. 6. Filling vacancies. …
Understanding American Government and politics
Samuel Steinberg – 1967 – 372 pages – Snippet view
Under the Constitution, the President must be a native-born citizen, at least 35 years of age at the time he takes office, and 14 years a resident of the United States. The residence requirement does not mean that a person must have …
Choosing the president of the USA.
No cover image Kathryn Haeseler Stone – 1954 – 43 pages – Snippet view
This pamphlet will confine its description to the role of the two-party system in choosing the President. II. … that he be a native-born citizen at least 35 years of age and a resident of the country for at least fourteen years. …
The Illinois constitution: an annotated and comparative analysis
George D. Braden, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Institute of Government and Public Affairs, Illinois. Constitution Study Commission – 1969 – 624 pages – Snippet view
The United States Constitution requires that the President be native born, 35 years old and l4 years a resident. By implication the same requirements must be met by the Vice President. The Model State Constitution requires only that the …
Problems in American democracy
Samuel Howard Patterson – 1961 – 658 pages – Snippet view
The Constitution specifies that the President must be a native born American, at least 35 years of age. His term of office is four years, after which he may be re-elected. George Washington, our first President, refused a third term, …
Principles and problems of American national government
John M. Swarthout, Ernest R. Bartley – 1951 – 700 pages – Snippet view
Since the Vice-President may assume the post of chief executive, he must meet the same constitutional qualifications as the President. The Vice-President, too, must be a native-born citizen who is at least 35 years of age and who has a …
Life in America: a handbook of information for newcomers to the …
Common Council for American Unity – 1955 – 96 pages – Snippet view
However, only the Senate can approve or reject treaties with other nations proposed by the President and only the … The President must be a native-born citizen, at least 35 years old and with 14 years’ residence in the United States. …
The World and its peoples: U.S.A.
1966 – 642 pages – Snippet view
The Executive Branch The executive branch of government is headed by the president, who is chosen in a national election for a four-year term of office. Any native-born citizen at least 35 years of age and a resident of the country for …
America: its history and people, a unit organization
Harold Underwood Faulkner, Tyler Kepner – 1950 – 953 pages – Snippet view
Election of the President. To be eligible for the Presidency or Vice Presidency, either by election or succession, one must be a native-born citizen, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for 14 years [59, note; …
Here is a link to the snippet results of some 400 books I turned up on google books in about twenty minutes on the subject:
http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/view-of-constitution-of-united-states.html
As a foreigner looking in on this {I’m Irish, from Ireland}, one of the fascinating things about this is that it always was said as I was growing up that one of the things that made America great is that anyone born in the country could become President.
Right up until “Anyone” did.
The thing (well, one of many things) that annoys me about birther claims is when they say that everyone, when growing up, was taught that you needed citizen parents to be able to become President. That is not just nonsense, it is offensive nonsense. I may have missed the 40s, 50s and most of the 60s, but I was always told that one of the great things about America was that anyone born here could grow up to be President. And the phrase “great thing about America” almost always was used. But it is abundantly clear that the birthers don’t give two figs about what makes this nation great.
Suranis beat me by 6 minutes.
When Vattel gets mentioned now, it is usually to illustrate how international law has evolved since his ” Law of Nations”. I seem to remember that once I put up a comment here, mentioning the most recent time it got quoted. That was in a legal treatise on the treatment of women in war situations. Of course, Vattel was quoted to illustrate the major chamges since the 18th century. That document also called Vattel “Van Vattel”. Vattel got a “de” prefix in Switzerland, and “von” in Saxony. The “van” prefix may be due to Prussian administration returning to its Low German roots at one time. Since the King of Saxony, Vattel’s employer, was also King of Poland, the spelling “Wattel” may be Polish.
On behalf of those of us who are sane, thank you.
Hmm…that should be “thank you” but I’m sure you get the idea.
What does he mean by penalties? There aren’t any penalties in the Constitution, those were to be determined by the new Congress when it defined what the offenses were.
Even the framers thought the law of nations was too vague:
“Art I. sect. 8: To define & punish piracies and felonies on the high seas, and “punish” offences against the law of nations.
“Mr. Govr. Morris moved to strike out “punish” before the words “offences agst. the law of nations.” so as to let these be definable as well as punishable, by virtue of the preceding member of the sentence.
“Mr. Wilson hoped the alteration would by no means be made. To pretend to define the law of nations which depended on the authority of all the Civilized Nations of the World, would have a look of arrogance. that would make us ridiculous.
“Mr. Govr [Morris]The word define is proper when applied to offences in this case; the law of (nations) being often too vague and deficient to be a rule.
“On the question to strike out the word “punish” (it passed in the affirmative)
September 14th, 1789, James Madison, “Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention ”
I entered first grade in 1954 and I never saw a civics book (or any other kind of textbook) which made the two citizen parents on U.S. soil argument.
A while back I posted that on Dr. Kate’s site and pointed out that I have a conservative textbook about the Constitution (published by the right-wing National Center for Constitutional Studies in 1985) which equates “natural-born” with “native-born.”
I was immediately banned.
I picked up the following on AZCentral.com, but the bill numbers don’t make any sense.
I
How so?
When you look them up, they have nothing whatever to do with elections. One is on waste disposal and the other on teacher certification.
They added the election bills as riders to other bills, because no one would vote for the election bill by themselves.
When I looked at the latest versions on the AZ legislature web site, there wasn’t any presidential stuff in them. But I see what happened, the House Bill was amended to “strike everything” and then add the election stuff. I don’t see it in the Senate bill, but it might be coming.
The amendment does drop the attempt to define presidential eligibility, but it still requires that the President be born in a hospital.
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=HB2177
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1157
And you expected the birthers to do things according to logic and correct procedure why exactly?