Constitution's "Natural Born" riddle solved! Read the shocking truth here!

[FaithLikeARock]

I'm on Herbie's side.

Congress was wrong. They did not base their interpretation of the Natural Born Clause on the Bible. They can't assume to know what is natural on their own, because they are only human.

Penmark, I'm not entirely certain you and Herbie aren't the same person.

That said, of course not, because the Bible is NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT. Go make your theocracy somewhere else.

 

[DaisyDay]

It's our Constitution. The clause was writen and agreed upon for a reason and the clause "natural born Citizen" replaced the original wording of "born Citizen" for a reason.

The Constitution is a legal document.

Pennmark is stating that a man made law can not change what is 'natural'.

More than that, pennmark is stating that man can't define natural - which would make the use of the word bizarre in a legal document.

I find those who hold that the 'supposition' bizarre to be holding a position even more "bizarre. Maybe even foreign and alien to this nation.

Are you calling me foreign and alien?

So sad to see this written. I used to hold out hope the not all Uni's were anti-God

Whoa, there HH. Are you accusing me of being anti-God simply because I say that man can know what is natural and what is man-made?

...and really no different than Atheists.

Hey, you're breaking board rules here.

Man only knows what he 'thinks' is natural and a lot of Men reckognize that man made laws can not change what is natural by God's law.

Yes, Herbie, if man uses the word "natural" in a clause of a legal document, the foundation of our laws, then he better know what the word means.

Tell me, what is the possibility of distinguishing between natural and what is man-made if no one but God can say what "natural" means?

 

[pennmark]

I'm sorry - it's just stupid to say that man cannot define the word "natural". He has defined it in many contexts, time and time again so to say he can't defies the reality of what has been done.

That's just absurd to say that only God knows what is natural. Absurd and untrue.

If its possible for humans to know what is natural without help from God, then why does our definition of what is natural keep changing?

 

[pennmark]

Penmark, I'm not entirely certain you and Herbie aren't the same person.

That said, of course not, because the Bible is NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT. Go make your theocracy somewhere else.

Herbie is a great guy, but I don't agree with him on everything.

If we use the Bible to help us determine what "Natural Born" meant to the men who wrote the Constitution, that's not establishing a religion.

 

[pennmark]

More than that, pennmark is stating that man can't define natural - which would make the use of the word bizarre in a legal document.

It's bizarre if you don't know what it means. If you know what it means, it's not bizarre.

 

[pennmark]

Tell me, what is the possibility of distinguishing between natural and what is man-made if no one but God can say what "natural" means?

We can choose to define something as being natural if we wish. But if that definition does not respect God's natural law, then it will not be truly natural, and the definition will fail us.

The problem with defining "natural born" as meaning "native born" is that it does not respect God's natural law concerning Fathers and children. Children are meant to be rewards from God to their Fathers, and that means the Father's nation must accept his children as being citizens.

The purpose of the Natural Born clause, so far as I can tell, is to provide the American people with a leader who is natural for them. If we don't respect God's Natural Law, we run the risk of electing Presidents who are not truly natural for us.

 

[USincognito]

If its possible for humans to know what is natural without help from God, then why does our definition of what is natural keep changing?

Got any valid examples?

 

[USincognito]

We can choose to define something as being natural if we wish. But if that definition does not respect God's natural law, then it will not be truly natural, and the definition will fail us.

I'm seeing a definate "Tautology: See Circular Reasoning"/"Circular Reasoning: See Tautology" thing going on here.

The problem with defining "natural born" as meaning "native born" is that it does not respect God's natural law concerning Fathers and children. Children are meant to be rewards from God to their Fathers, and that means the Father's nation must accept his children as being citizens.

I'm sure this idea works great in theocracies. Thankfully we are not one.

The purpose of the Natural Born clause, so far as I can tell, is to provide the American people with a leader who is natural for them. If we don't respect God's Natural Law, we run the risk of electing Presidents who are not truly natural for us.

"Natural for them"? This doesn't make any sense.

 

[DaisyDay]

If its possible for humans to know what is natural without help from God, then why does our definition of what is natural keep changing?

I haven't noticed that it does keep changing.

If we use the Bible to help us determine what "Natural Born" meant to the men who wrote the Constitution, that's not establishing a religion.

Where does the Bible define "Natural Born", chapter, verse?

 

[pennmark]

Got any valid examples?

Our definition of what a "Natural Born Citizen" is keeps changing.

According to what I've read, 2008 was the first time America knowingly voted for a President whose father was not American. Chester Arthur's father was a British Subject, but he deliberately hid that fact from the American public before he was elected. Why did he feel he needed to hide it?

 

[pennmark]

Where does the Bible define "Natural Born", chapter, verse?

The Bible doesn't outright define "Natural Born". In order for our definition of Natural Born to be truly natural, however, we need to respect God's natural law that children are God's reward to their Fathers.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Our definition of what a "Natural Born Citizen" is keeps changing.

According to what I've read, 2008 was the first time America knowingly voted for a President whose father was not American. Chester Arthur's father was a British Subject, but he deliberately hid that fact from the American public before he was elected. Why did he feel he needed to hide it?

People wouldn't have voted for him had they known?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The Bible doesn't outright define "Natural Born".

And nobody would care if it did -- the Bible is not the law of this or any other land.

 

[szechuan]

The Bible doesn't outright define "Natural Born". In order for our definition of Natural Born to be truly natural, however, we need to respect God's natural law that children are God's reward to their Fathers.

So it's not about Natural Born anymore, it's about the "Natural Law" whatever that means.

I guess America always has to abide by God's law. Funny in Germany Gay people have more rights than the U.S. and Germans elected a Christian Democrat as their leader. I guess in Germany they have a different interpretation of God's Law or are just less homophobic like the majority of Repubs.

 

[DaisyDay]

The Bible doesn't outright define "Natural Born". In order for our definition of Natural Born to be truly natural, however, we need to respect God's natural law that children are God's reward to their Fathers.

Whose reward are fatherless children?

 

[DianaUsmcWife]

I must say I do not agree much with the OP's opinion on natural born, or this absence of female influence. With my husband being in the Corps, I have a huge influence on my son.. I raise him to be a proud American, teach him of G-d's love and how to be a good man. Is that not good enough for my son to one day be President?

 

[RETS]

RE: OP -

Interesting. I don't agree on some points, but for the most part, I'd say it's decent.

I also have to express some disbelief at the sheer number of responses which attempted to discredit the idea based solely on gender bias... Adults, are we all???

The United States can be so tediously backwards, sometimes. This whole native citizenship requirement is so primitive. I wouldn't have any problem with a dual citizen running if they are willing to renounce their dual-citizenship.

Interestingly enough, a duel citizen cannot have the best interest of a single country in mind for the sole purpose that their allegiance is divided. That would be like... Oh, we'll use the outrageous illustration.

That would be like asking Bernie Madoff to faithfully oversee the growth of your personal retirement fund. He may surprise you, but it is highly doubtful.

 

[pennmark]

I must say I do not agree much with the OP's opinion on natural born, or this absence of female influence. With my husband being in the Corps, I have a huge influence on my son.. I raise him to be a proud American, teach him of G-d's love and how to be a good man. Is that not good enough for my son to one day be President?

What if your Husband was not in the Corps? What if he were some foriegn prince, or some other alien with foriegn entanglements? What if he were the King of Saudi Arabia? Your son would still legally be American, but do you think he would be "natural born" and eligible to run for President?

Children, of course, belong to their Mothers. They will most likely live with their Mothers in their Mother's country. Men are different from women in that they can possibly scatter their seed all over the world. Children must be seen as naturally belonging to their Fathers, even if not legally, to keep Fathers accountable for their children, wherever in the world they may be.

 

[Incariol]

What if your Husband was not in the Corps? What if he were some foriegn prince, or some other alien with foriegn entanglements? What if he were the King of Saudi Arabia? Your son would still legally be American, but do you think he would be "natural born" and eligible to run for President?

Yes.

Children, of course, belong to their Mothers. They will most likely live with their Mothers in their Mother's country. Men are different from women in that they can possibly scatter their seed all over the world.

lolz.

Children must be seen as naturally belonging to their Fathers, even if not legally, to keep Fathers accountable for their children, wherever in the world they may be.

Sure, just realize that has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitutional requirements for the presidency. Fact is, Barack Sr. abandoned his son when he was 2, and met him again only once when the boy was 10. Saying that he "belonged" to his father is laughable given the circumstances, much less that it has any impact in our legal system.

 

[pennmark]

So it's not about Natural Born anymore, it's about the "Natural Law" whatever that means.

Maybe I was mistaken to believe that "Natural Born" was not a legal term. It is a legal term, but it's meaning is derived from Natural Law. It has a real meaning, and it's meaning cannot be changed by Human Law.