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

To: 2ndDivisionVet
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase 'natural born citizen' has a specific meaning - namely, someone who is a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time."

That's complete BS btw.

The SCOTUS has repeatedly espoused the opinion that a NBC is a person that was born within the allegiance and the dominion of the sovereign- born in the country IOW. This is repeatedly held up in United States v. Wong Kim Ark opinion and is also stated flatly in Justice Curtis's dissenting opinion in Dred Scott.

3 posted on 01/24/2016 1:22:09 AM PST by RC one ("...all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens" US v. WKA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: RC one

SCOTUS? Seriously? I don’t see them as following the constitution any more than congress or Obozo.


36 posted on 01/24/2016 3:45:12 AM PST by strings6459
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: RC one
This is repeatedly held up in United States v. Wong Kim Ark opinion and is also stated flatly in Justice Curtis's dissenting opinion in Dred Scott.

US v. Wong Kim Ark was a legal travesty by a court packed with corporate lawyers. Read the dissent by Chief Justice Fuller. It's a landmark of legal scholarship by comparison.

Soil doesn't impart culture. Parentage does.

122 posted on 01/24/2016 8:14:20 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: RC one

The Framers rejected the notion that a “subject” of a sovereign in English Law equates to a “citizen” in a constitutional republic as part of a rejection of English common law and English law generally as the law of the newborn republic. I do not believe analyses based on this comparison based on a surmise from the Framers’ “familiarity” with English law will stand up in court. Story’s Commentaries reject this notion, among other authorities. Some argue that the Law of Nations which the Framers were familiar with and looked to in matters of citizenship meant the law of America as a nation was modeled on the English law of that nation because of the surmised familiarity with the language of English law. When British warships impressed American seamen on the theory of the seamen having been born as his Majesty’s subjects, we went to war to consolidate the Revolution and reject that idea. Citizens of this Republic owe not allegiance to any sovereign save the Constitution itself. It is that which all public officeholders swear to uphold, protect and defend. You can only be natural born as a citizen if you are born in this country or on its territory with parents both of whom are citizens of this country because it is only then that you are a citizen completely under the Constitution with no allegiance to anything else as sovereign over yourself. Only here, under our Constitution, are the citizens sovereign over the government. At least that was the intent at the Framing. Here a citizen, to be natural born as such in order to be eligible for the presidency, must owe allegiance only to the sovereignty of his fellow citizens of this nation.


178 posted on 01/24/2016 2:56:55 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | 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