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

To: Danae
"There is only one that matters, the qualifications for POTUS. That defination has not been specifically defined by the SCOTUS, and because of this, the only defination we have is what the founders intended. That the President be a child of two parents who were citizens and be born on the soil of the US or its territory."

Too bad that's not what founders intended.
282 posted on 02/12/2010 6:46:38 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies ]


To: EnderWiggins

WKA’s parents were under the jurisdiction of foreign law, it has been viewed as a flawed decision.
I have posted four other Supreme Court cases that directly conflict with WKA.

An Act of April 9, 1866 established for the first time a national law that read, “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” Rep. John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, said this national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) was “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”


286 posted on 02/12/2010 6:51:13 PM PST by syc1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies ]

To: EnderWiggins

ROTFLMAO Prove that!

*cough*Federalist68*cough*


296 posted on 02/12/2010 7:01:31 PM PST by Danae (Don't like our Constitution? Try living in a country with out one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | 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