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

To: Carry_Okie
No, not at all.
Again, Case Law can be overturned, rather easily, by Legislation after said case is decided.
The “Case Law” that radical Birthers bring up was all decided PRIOR to Congressional action and guidance on Citizenship issues.
Congress does have the power to interpret, enact, enforce and define the Constitution.

“Natural Born Citizen” has ALWAYS meant “Citizen at the Moment of Birth” -—

However, Congress has changed the rules, more than once, as to which New Borns qualify, and which do not.

51 posted on 02/01/2012 8:11:48 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: Kansas58

“Radical birthers”?????/
You’re showing your bias.

“However, Congress has changed the rules, more than once, as to which New Borns qualify, and which do not. “

You may be right—congresscritters do the damndest things!

Bath-House Barry Propped Up By Congress!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw


68 posted on 02/01/2012 8:26:16 PM PST by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

To: Kansas58

I found the quote below on line, purporting to be from the US Supreme Court, Minor v. Happersett,1875.

If this is a true and accurate quote, it contradicts your definitive statement:

“Natural Born Citizen” has ALWAYS meant “Citizen at the Moment of Birth”

Since I am not a lawyer, as you appear to be, please enlighten me. Thank you.

“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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”


72 posted on 02/01/2012 8:29:11 PM PST by map
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

To: Kansas58
“Natural Born Citizen” has ALWAYS meant “Citizen at the Moment of Birth”

Oh, you're a sneaky snake, aren't you!
You are right, a natural born citizen is always going to be a citizen at birth.

A simple test for you - a man and a woman immigrate to the US. They both become citizens of the US through the naturalization process. They then have a child in one of the several States of the US.

Is that child a citizen or a natural born citizen?

123 posted on 02/01/2012 8:58:58 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

To: Kansas58
"“Natural Born Citizen” has ALWAYS meant “Citizen at the Moment of Birth”

NO IT HASN'T. When I was in school and CIVICS was being taught we were taught that a Natural Born Citizen was one born of two citizen parents.

126 posted on 02/01/2012 9:00:21 PM PST by Spunky (w)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]

To: Kansas58

““Natural Born Citizen” has ALWAYS meant “Citizen at the Moment of Birth”

WRONG! The person whose father was born in Canada to two U.S. citizens, is a “citizen at birth”. FACT

Are you saying he would be eligible to be president of the United States (a Natural Born Citizen) having been born in a foreign country?

That IS what you are saying and it is RIDICULOUS!


190 posted on 02/01/2012 10:06:17 PM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | 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