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

To: Non-Sequitur

Go read the ruling posted above my friend.

Natural Born Citizen is a very specific term, and in the context of the constituional writing that terms meaning is very well understood and defined. No child of a parent who owes allegance to another nation, whether that child be born on US Soil or not is a natural born citizen.

The constitution does not simply say “citizen” or “native born citizen” it uses a very well understood and defined phrase of “natural born citizen”. Words have meaning folks, even if you have been taught otherwise by a dumbed down educational system. The framers and authors of the constitution used words for their meanings, not arbitrarily.

Ignoring the historical context of the writing of the constitution to play semantics with it post facto like those who try to argue “natural born” does not mean what it means are guilty of what Madison warned of when he stated the obvious:

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
-James Madison


40 posted on 08/03/2009 10:12:47 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: HamiltonJay; Non-Sequitur
"Natural Born Citizen is a very specific term, and in the context of the constitutional writing that terms meaning is very well understood and defined. No child of a parent who owes allegiance to another nation, whether that child be born on US Soil or not is a natural born citizen."

I happen to agree with your position. But, the majority opinion in Ark goes a long way towards rewriting that definition, if it doesn't get there entirely. And, as others have pointed out, the Constitution doesn't define "natural-born", it just employs it's use. It would be the prerogative of SCOTUS or the legislature to modify, change expand or limit what the contemporary definition is or isn't.

What's important, is it would seem that Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito all think it(Ark)does define it in such a way that it supports Obama's presidential eligibility (assuming of course he was actually born in HI), or they wouldn't have denied cert in the Donofrio case. Roberts made it clear in his confirmation testimony about his reverence for stare decisis. Roberts, nor anyone else on the bench - at any level - hasn't the appetite for revisiting Ark, or any number of cases that upholds or reinforces Ark.

48 posted on 08/03/2009 10:27:37 AM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: HamiltonJay
Ignoring the historical context of the writing of the constitution to play semantics with it post facto like those who try to argue “natural born” does not mean what it means...

And there in lies the rub - what exactly does it mean? And where is this definition to be found?

59 posted on 08/03/2009 12:06:48 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | 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