Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rbmillerjr
In the first case, anyone who is a citizen by nature of his birth is a “natural born citizen.”

"Natural born" had a meaning in 1787. Place of birth, plus citizenship of parents, were factors in this determination.It is why the phrase even appears in the eligibility requirements for President.

You quote no source for your definiiton. Kindly do so.

20 posted on 02/14/2013 6:59:38 PM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: exit82
Natural born" had a meaning in 1787. Place of birth, plus citizenship of parents, were factors in this determination.

I respectfully disagree, in part.

It's the parental citizenship that matters. The place of birth is immaterial.

The phrase 'natural-born comes from Natural Law...a.k.a. the Law of Nature and Nations by Vattel. In a nutshell, natural born citizenship is hereditary...you get it from your parents. If they are either a natural-born or naturalized citizen at the time of the birth of the child, the child is natural born - and it doesn't matter where the birth occurs.

I do how ever, agree the 14th does not convey natural-born citizenship.

By it's current interpretation, it splits the Original meaning of natural born into a separate type of citizenship: native born, or a naturalization-at-birth on children of aliens and foreigners.

And it is blatantly unconstitutional.

34 posted on 02/14/2013 7:23:14 PM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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