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

To: MHGinTN
Tsk, tsk, tsk, your issuing an assertion does not make it so.

Nor does your's.

But that was a nice try to mischaracterize: the court holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark states that Wong Kim Ark is a native born citizen.

And just where is the difference between native born and natural born outlined? In law or in the Constitution or in other Supreme Court decisions?

162 posted on 06/23/2009 9:34:44 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur

Finally you’re getting the point! ... A SCOTUS ruling on the definition of natural born citizen is needed as it applies to the Constitutional requirement for eligibility. Your desire to have native born mean the same thing as natural born does not remove the reality that a SCOTUS rendering is needed to settle the issue. But then, rational discussion isn’t what you come to these BC threads for anyway, by your own admission, so I don’t expect you’ll acknowledge a court ruling is needed where your affirmative action figure is the issue.


163 posted on 06/23/2009 9:43:56 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | 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