Posted on 10/06/2009 7:12:21 PM PDT by kellynla
The only definition they cite, without quoting it, is a statute passed by the First Congress.
"Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';"
The rest of it is just more statements of fact, followed by a resolution.
You are reading one of the statements of fact, the one reciting the circumstances of his birth, as if it were a definition. That makes no more sense than reading this statement as a definition:
"Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;"
So by your reasoning, only "men and women who are assigned to server our country outside of our national borders" are natural born citizens. Because that's also what they wrote in this resolution.
What definition was the Senate using in that resolution????
Come on — you can read.
The passage from Happersett doesn't say anything except there's no doubt that "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."
That's true. There is no doubt about that.
It also says some authorities also "include citizens born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents". But then it says that's not an issue before them and specifically declines to take a position!
BTW, there's also this line. "These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Uh oh. It specifically equates the terms "natives" and "natural-born citizens", leaving no room for any third, "native but not natural born" category. Completely undermines your point. You may not want to keep posting that. ;-)
Dude, I answered your question. Can you read?
Can you read and answer a simple question??? Define “natural born citizen” as used in SR511???
And once again I’m telling you, I already answered that question. Go back and read post #81.
Then answer it again — Post the definition used in SR511.
The only definition they cite, without quoting it, is a statute passed by the First Congress.
"Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';"
There is no definition there —
Bingo! Precisely what I’ve been telling you.
Bongo! Precisely what you have been evading. The definition used by the Senate was the one used by the First Congress:
"Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';" [SR511]
And the First Congress used a definition that required both parents to be citizens.
And that is the same definition used throughout the SR511. Read it sometime.
Really now? You wouldn't make that up would you? Quote it.
"And that is the same definition used throughout the SR511. Read it sometime."
No definition is used "throughout".
Are you telling us that they just used words in that resolution that have no definitions???
Why do you insist on asking questions to just make me repeat what I've already said? That makes no sense.
The only definition for "natural born citizen" that they provide was an unquoted one used by the First Congress. There is no other.
The thing you keep calling a "definition", isn't. It's just a recitation of the particular facts of McCain's birth. It is one item in a a list of "Whereas's".
Now, instead of asking me to repeat things I've already said, please make whatever point it is you want to make. But do it by quoting the source. It would also be nice if you'd review what we've already said and honestly consider what it means, instead of just trying to find some reason to disagree.
Sure thing, Humpty Dumpty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.