Re: What a let down. . .
- From: Jim Davis <jimdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 Apr 2005 22:07:32 GMT
> The problem is that that the "natural-born" requirement had a
> clearer purpose at the time the constitution was written than it
> does now. The US
> was a new country and the US style of government was relatively
> They didn't want someone from another country coming in and
> purposely toppling the government
No. This is completely wrong.
1. The concern was never about someone from another country
"toppling the government". The concern has always been about what
today is termed a conflict of interest - is it desirable that the
foreign affairs of the country be conducted by someone who was at
one time loyal to another country?
2. The time of the adoption of the Constitution and a few
generations thereafter was the only time in US history when
naturalized citizens *were* elgible to be president. Article II,
Section 1. - "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 eligibleto the office of President..."
Alexander Hamilton, born in the West Indies, had presidential
The natural born requirement has greater relevance today than when
the Constitution was adopted.
- Prev by Date: Re: SR 71 and D 21 Pics Pima Air
- Next by Date: Re: SR 71 and D 21 Pics Pima Air
- Previous by thread: Re: What a let down. . .
- Next by thread: Re: What a let down. . .