The United States Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen”; however, it does confer on Congress the power: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

It is not that clear to me. There has been several Supreme Court decisions through the years to define citizenship.

Actually, it is clear.

The part about "at the time of this Constitution" is because when they were writing it, none of them were natural born citizens, and as such, they'd have to wait an awful long time for someone to be elected President.

Anyone after that has to be a natural born citizen, just as the first part of that clause states.

I believe the "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" is to set a starting point of both "natural born citizen" or "Citizen of the United States".
People in residence at the time of signing would automatically be eligible to run for President (conditional to stated age and residency requirements). So the "awful long time" would not be an issue.

But you are right, I concede to your point.

But if they wrote it that only natural born citizens were allowed to be President, they'd automatically deny themselves the ability to elect a current leader, so they'd have to wait until the first natural born citizen grew to the age of 35 in order to be eligible for office.

The "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" means exactly that - those who are natural born citizens or those who are citizens "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" are eligible.

The quoted part is not meant to be a starting point for anyone else at all. It was only added to make those who wrote it immediately eligible and none other.

You can't do that without disturbing the peace though can you?

You'll always demand that you will find 'peace' and 'harmony' via the use of force and aggression.

You'll never be allowed by your own premises to have any sort of society where free men and women deal with each other by the consent of their own minds.

You may not be religious (I am not) but you share all of their mystical premises. You believe man somehow doesn't belong to himself, that his / her body, is not his own. He belongs to your god or government.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Both religions can be accused of past mass exterminations.

Currently, the Atheists are having a good little run of their own... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Here's something I found, So much for a Religion of peace.

http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/jihad.html

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

You can't do that without disturbing the peace though can you?

You'll always demand that you will find 'peace' and 'harmony' via the use of force and aggression.

You'll never be allowed by your own premises to have any sort of society where free men and women deal with each other by the consent of their own minds.

You may not be religious (I am not) but you share all of their mystical premises. You believe man somehow doesn't belong to himself, that his / her body, is not his own. He belongs to your god or government.

if you want to be truly free, then you have to move some remote island and have
nothing to do with any country, and will live by what you cultivate, hunt, fish,
do your own clothes, not buy or trade anything, but do everything you need by yourself. otherwise you are part of some society and can´t claim to be free

Very true aristo
No one is self reliant. We all need each other to survive.
That's the way it's been since the dawn of man and no matter how hard some would argue to the contrary, it remains a universal truth.

Ronald Reagen (1981-1989) and Bill Clinton (1993-2001) did balance our budget.
Both Bush, George HW and George W used them all up for wars.

---

people tend to refer some imaginary "wild west" as place to live and be free,
but sadly if you drop average joe there he would complain about the hard work
he has to do to get by, but thankfully before he starves to death some obscure herd of buffalos run him down cause he was not paying attention, and they were not free in any sense which would make any sense, they were part of society.

No one is self reliant. We all need each other to survive.

Try telling that to the rich men who oppress me... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

No one is self reliant. We all need each other to survive.
That's the way it's been since the dawn of man and no matter how hard some would argue to the contrary, it remains a universal truth.

That doesn't give you or anyone else the right to use gov't force to make others pay for your silly programs.

Because if that's OK, they can use gov't force to make you pay for their silly programs. Oh, right, they are. War in Iraq, corporate welfare, the massive bailout, weapons, the CIA, lots o' things.

Happy paying for those? You should be thrilled. It's the system you support, working exactly as you want it to.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

it does, if you don´t want them you use current political system to chance
them or move outside of any society, you can´t live in society and take raisins
out of bun and same time whine about restrictions of this and that society,
chance, move or stop whining

Ronald Reagen (1981-1989) and Bill Clinton (1993-2001) did balance our budget.
Both Bush, George HW and George W used them all up for wars.

Reagan never balanced the Federal budget. In fact, the budget deficits ballooned during his Presidency as a result of a defense buildup and reduced revenues.

Clinton did end his final year with a significant budget surplus. For the first time, the "National Debt Clock" in New York actually stopped. Unfortunately, instead of restructuring and paying down the US debt, George W. and the Republican-controlled Congress approved tax cuts just weeks before the attacks of 9/11/2001 and the subsequent economic downturn.

The deficits - and the national debt - have been going up ever since.

---

Join the PACK!

Reagan never balanced the Federal budget. In fact, the budget deficits ballooned during his Presidency as a result of a defense buildup and reduced revenues.

Clinton did end his final year with a significant budget surplus. For the first time, the "National Debt Clock" in New York actually stopped. Unfortunately, instead of restructuring and paying down the US debt, George W. and the Republican-controlled Congress approved tax cuts just weeks before the attacks of 9/11/2001 and the subsequent economic downturn.

The deficits - and the national debt - have been going up ever since.

Of course, Clinton never balanced the Federal budget either. A) Because much of the "balance" came in what is usually called "out years," the time after the particular president leaves office, some of which would only be happening now. B) Since the budget is redone every year, a myriad of things change, and do every year. C) The "savings" were based on overly rosy economic forecasts which over-estimated Federal tax revenue. D) The so-called accounting rules that the Federal gov't uses would get you thrown into prison for the rest of your life if you used them. It's called criminal fraud. E) This doesn't even begin to take into account "off-budget" items that require Federal money, but that the gov't has decided do not need to appear on the budget anymore.

This, of course, isn't particular to Clinton or any other administration. They're all just Barbra Streisanding you.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

No one is self reliant. We all need each other to survive.
That's the way it's been since the dawn of man and no matter how hard some would argue to the contrary, it remains a universal truth.

That doesn't give you or anyone else the right to use gov't force to make others pay for your silly programs.

Because if that's OK, they can use gov't force to make you pay for their silly programs. Oh, right, they are. War in Iraq, corporate welfare, the massive bailout, weapons, the CIA, lots o' things.

Happy paying for those? You should be thrilled. It's the system you support, working exactly as you want it to.

It's your vision of the system I support so you can stop blaming me for your neo-con screw-ups.

It's like Bizzaro world when talking to neo-cons.
Every day is opposite day. Whatever they make a mess of is blamed on someone else.

No one is self reliant. We all need each other to survive.
That's the way it's been since the dawn of man and no matter how hard some would argue to the contrary, it remains a universal truth.

That doesn't give you or anyone else the right to use gov't force to make others pay for your silly programs.

Because if that's OK, they can use gov't force to make you pay for their silly programs. Oh, right, they are. War in Iraq, corporate welfare, the massive bailout, weapons, the CIA, lots o' things.

Happy paying for those? You should be thrilled. It's the system you support, working exactly as you want it to.

The President according to the US Constitution is Commander in Chief, and the Constitution doesn't say the President needs a declaration of war to use the troops, As the president is responsible for the Nations Safety and Security, The president didn't lie as some weirdos say, Saddam let It be known before He died that He had spread the rumor to keep Iran from invading Iraq, He never thought the USA would invade, So the President acted on phony info and now We have to clean up Saddams Legacy, Like It or not, We don't get a say in the matter, As It's a Matter of National Security as spelled out in the US Constitution.

Actually only Congress has the right to spend money as part of the Federal Budget and so various programs both classified and unclassified get money spent on them and We don't get to pick and choose where the money goes, Only Congress and the President does.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

The War Powers Resolution or Act is a big part is the president's war powers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

My big problem is that the UN and the inspectors ... which Hussain let in ... were saying there was nothing to be found. And they were right. Why didn't we give them the time they requested. They were the real experts and they were right. Instead we choice to believe sources that the CIA named "curveball" instead of the people who lived and worked in Iraq. People who had the job to inspect iraq and make sure that there was no WMD. People who did their job for over ten years. People who did a hell of a job. But instead we decided that Iraq had them no matter what. I don't think the phony evidence was good enough now or then to invade. However, what is done is done. I just wish the president would say that he(not others) made a mistake, but now we all have to work together to fix it. Maybe not in a grand fashion like he did when he said the mission was done. But on TV.

I do have a question about the Iraq War (which does look better now by the way): What if a war is not winnable. McCain and a lot of others say we have to bring the troops home with victory. What if victory is out of reach, what if it can never be. Do we stay forever. How do we figure out when it is not reachable? If it is not winnable to we just keep fighing until we run out of money and troops?

Curveball: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafid_Ahmed_Alwan

Chris.

No one is self reliant. We all need each other to survive.
That's the way it's been since the dawn of man and no matter how hard some would argue to the contrary, it remains a universal truth.

That doesn't give you or anyone else the right to use gov't force to make others pay for your silly programs.

Because if that's OK, they can use gov't force to make you pay for their silly programs. Oh, right, they are. War in Iraq, corporate welfare, the massive bailout, weapons, the CIA, lots o' things.

Happy paying for those? You should be thrilled. It's the system you support, working exactly as you want it to.

The President according to the US Constitution is Commander in Chief, and the Constitution doesn't say the President needs a declaration of war to use the troops, As the president is responsible for the Nations Safety and Security, The president didn't lie as some weirdos say, Saddam let It be known before He died that He had spread the rumor to keep Iran from invading Iraq, He never thought the USA would invade, So the President acted on phony info and now We have to clean up Saddams Legacy, Like It or not, We don't get a say in the matter, As It's a Matter of National Security as spelled out in the US Constitution.

Actually only Congress has the right to spend money as part of the Federal Budget and so various programs both classified and unclassified get money spent on them and We don't get to pick and choose where the money goes, Only Congress and the President does.

---

No one is self reliant. We all need each other to survive.
That's the way it's been since the dawn of man and no matter how hard some would argue to the contrary, it remains a universal truth.

That doesn't give you or anyone else the right to use gov't force to make others pay for your silly programs.

Because if that's OK, they can use gov't force to make you pay for their silly programs. Oh, right, they are. War in Iraq, corporate welfare, the massive bailout, weapons, the CIA, lots o' things.

Happy paying for those? You should be thrilled. It's the system you support, working exactly as you want it to.

It's your vision of the system I support so you can stop blaming me for your neo-con screw-ups.

I don't blame you personally. I blame everyone who thinks as you do, because for the 1000th time, if you support the system where gov't force is used to force people to do things, you should be thrilled. You have actual neo-cons advocating exactly the same thing you do--using the gov't to make other people pay for their stupid programs.

It doesn't matter that you guys disagree about which programs are important.

It's like Bizzaro world when talking to neo-cons.
Every day is opposite day. Whatever they make a mess of is blamed on someone else.

I just place blame where it belongs. "Neo-cons," pinkos, Democrats, Republicans, anyone who advocates initiating force against others.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Saddam let It be known before He died that He had spread the rumor

Got a video tape? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Saddam let It be known before He died that He had spread the rumor

Got a video tape? ;)

How's this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

I hope this is good enough, Bush didn't lie, Just a bunch of know It alls who weren't in the loop.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's