Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur; Jim Robinson
Your purposed dissembling is easily exposed. No where does the Constitution define 'natural born citizen, therefore it is incumbent upon the SCOTUS to clarify this phrase.

The Constitution addresses for definition how one is defined as a citizen however, and there are two ways to meet that, by naturalization or by being born on U.S. soil and/or by having one or more parents be a U.S. citizen of legitimate age. And there are scotus cases which have been cited as illustrative of these citienship definitions.

That you continue to try and conflate the fourteenth amendment explanation of citizenship with the as yet unelucidated means to be a natural born citizen is quite telling, unless one recalls your admission that you play on these threads as a means to feed your twisted desire to incite emotional responses from Freepers, as if you've appointed yourself to be the exposer of freerepublic as populated by emotional, irrational folks. In sports, mocking is penalized, but fortunately for people like you, Freerepublic does not regulate such insulting behavior, since it is left to freepers to cite it for fellow readers.

Your Bagalaesque condescension drips from your smarmy dissembling posts.

126 posted on 06/17/2009 11:25:53 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]


To: MHGinTN
No where does the Constitution define 'natural born citizen, therefore it is incumbent upon the SCOTUS to clarify this phrase.

No, it's Congress' job to define it. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to establish a uniform rule for naturalization. Part of defining who can be naturalized is identifying who doesn't need to be. In other words who is a natural born citizen.

The Constitution addresses for definition how one is defined as a citizen however, and there are two ways to meet that, by naturalization or by being born on U.S. soil and/or by having one or more parents be a U.S. citizen of legitimate age. And there are scotus cases which have been cited as illustrative of these citienship definitions.

Agreed. The Ark case and the Elg decision are two examples where the Supreme Court ruled that the nationality of the parent was irrelevant to whether a person born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen.

That you continue to try and conflate the fourteenth amendment explanation of citizenship with the as yet unelucidated means to be a natural born citizen is quite telling...

But the means to be a natural born citizen has been elucidated. The definition has been defined and refined by Congress on a number of occasions. Currently it can be found Here, in Title 8 > Chapter 12 > Subchapter III > Part I > § 1401 of the U.S. Code.

...unless one recalls your admission that you play on these threads as a means to feed your twisted desire to incite emotional responses from Freepers, as if you've appointed yourself to be the exposer of freerepublic as populated by emotional, irrational folk.

Nonsense

136 posted on 06/17/2009 7:05:25 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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