- Banned
- #1
I understand that not too many still desire to, strictly, adhere to the U.S. Constitution just as they do not have a desire to, strictly, adhere to The Holy Bible. I understand this. It is called 'modern interpretation'; just as God changes with 'time', so they say, so also should 'we'.
Well accordingly to the U.S. Constitution, president hopefuls had to 'fit' into The Constitutuon's guidelines. Article 2, i believe. A certain age, a certain number of years as a member of the U.S State and also one who was required to have been a 'citizen' of the U.S 'AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF 'this' CONSTITUTION'. Well of course noone would be able to fit the last requirement seeing the 'adoption' occurred in 1787, or so? The full acceptance, or 'adoption', ratification is what i believe it is called, by all 13, not 50, States. So of course noone alive today would have been able to have been born in 1787, as a 'citizen', and be alive today even running for the Presidential 'seat'.
So what could it have meant when the early founding fathers, all excelling in academia and also being 'well travelled 'world' travellers', wrote this 'requirement' and signed their 'well repudated name and surname' to have surrendered their parchment(s) of the guidelines of the U.S Government, as the 'great' separation war between the colonists, the separatists and the U.K, resulted in; 'The Demand for Independence'? Perhaps they, being advanced in learning as well as having noted the 'migrations' which were already occurring; with the finding(s) of The Newfoundland(s), they might have written this requirement as a 'future' caution which they could have forseen as a possible U.S 'danger', or 'treason', as The Constitution speaks of; Article 4, i think. So....
To be a 'citizen' at 'THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION' of This U.S Constitution; 1787, or so, maybe being born of already U.S citizens, in 1787, could be what they meant; then even up to present.
Let's just 'assume' this to be... Nextly... Trivia ????
Which U.S President was the very first which did NOT have parental lineage back(ing) to 1787 within the U.S?
Hint: (W)ould you be (W)restling with the concept?
W.W.
Do you think Mr. W.W looks a little like Mr. J.B, (Joe Biden), only with 'darker' features, a little??
Well accordingly to the U.S. Constitution, president hopefuls had to 'fit' into The Constitutuon's guidelines. Article 2, i believe. A certain age, a certain number of years as a member of the U.S State and also one who was required to have been a 'citizen' of the U.S 'AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF 'this' CONSTITUTION'. Well of course noone would be able to fit the last requirement seeing the 'adoption' occurred in 1787, or so? The full acceptance, or 'adoption', ratification is what i believe it is called, by all 13, not 50, States. So of course noone alive today would have been able to have been born in 1787, as a 'citizen', and be alive today even running for the Presidential 'seat'.
So what could it have meant when the early founding fathers, all excelling in academia and also being 'well travelled 'world' travellers', wrote this 'requirement' and signed their 'well repudated name and surname' to have surrendered their parchment(s) of the guidelines of the U.S Government, as the 'great' separation war between the colonists, the separatists and the U.K, resulted in; 'The Demand for Independence'? Perhaps they, being advanced in learning as well as having noted the 'migrations' which were already occurring; with the finding(s) of The Newfoundland(s), they might have written this requirement as a 'future' caution which they could have forseen as a possible U.S 'danger', or 'treason', as The Constitution speaks of; Article 4, i think. So....
To be a 'citizen' at 'THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION' of This U.S Constitution; 1787, or so, maybe being born of already U.S citizens, in 1787, could be what they meant; then even up to present.
Let's just 'assume' this to be... Nextly... Trivia ????
Which U.S President was the very first which did NOT have parental lineage back(ing) to 1787 within the U.S?
Hint: (W)ould you be (W)restling with the concept?
W.W.
Do you think Mr. W.W looks a little like Mr. J.B, (Joe Biden), only with 'darker' features, a little??
Last edited: