Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: editor-surveyor
One more time....

We know that it is a legal impossibility for him to be a “Natural Born” citizen, as required by Article II of the constitution, since his birth citizenship is British due to the fact that his father was a british citizen, not a US citizen. No other evidence is required. .
43 posted on 09/13/2010 7:20:28 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: presently no screen name
We know that it is a legal impossibility for him to be a “Natural Born” citizen, as required by Article II of the constitution, since his birth citizenship is British due to the fact that his father was a British citizen, not a US citizen. No other evidence is required.

Frustrating isn't it. We know the left has many operatives. Is all this ignorance agitprop? Some of it certainly is. We on FR have come to know the trolls, who are ready with the seminar blogger list of responses - Wong Kim Ark, our law is based on English Common Law, Vattel didn't mean what he said because he used French, Indiana's Supreme Court amended the Constitution, ...

We must patiently continue to explain the truth. If the public can't understand, we will understand that our society has become so numbed by a poor education system and by having become dependent upon the federal teat that we are no longer capable of sustaining John Marshall's “nation of laws, and not of men.”

Chief Justice Morrison Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, provided the definition again, this time the citation used on our own government website in its annotated Constitution, and used by Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark, to allow no uncertainty about who were natural born citizens - and Wong Kim, a “Native born citizen of the U.S.,” exactly the term used by Barack to define his own citizenship, was explicitly a “citizen,” not natural born, because, while born on our soil, his parents were not citizens.

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

97 posted on 09/14/2010 2:57:36 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: presently no screen name
We know that it is a legal impossibility for him to be a “Natural Born” citizen, as required by Article II of the constitution, since his birth citizenship is British due to the fact that his father was a British citizen, not a US citizen. No other evidence is required.

Frustrating isn't it. We know the left has many operatives. Is all this ignorance agitprop? Some of it certainly is. We on FR have come to know the trolls, who are ready with the seminar blogger list of responses - Wong Kim Ark, our law is based on English Common Law, Vattel didn't mean what he said because he used French, Indiana's Supreme Court amended the Constitution, ...

We must patiently continue to explain the truth. If the public can't understand, we will understand that our society has become so numbed by a poor education system and by having become dependent upon the federal teat that we are no longer capable of sustaining John Marshall's “nation of laws, and not of men.”

Chief Justice Morrison Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, provided the definition again, this time the citation used on our own government website in its annotated Constitution, and used by Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark, to allow no uncertainty about who were natural born citizens - and Wong Kim, a “Native born citizen of the U.S.,” exactly the term used by Barack to define his own citizenship, was explicitly a “citizen,” not natural born, because, while born on our soil, his parents were not citizens.

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

98 posted on 09/14/2010 2:57:43 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson