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

To: Diver Dave
If Bambi is qualified by way of the 14th as Bruce Campbells Chin claims, there’s no mention in the 14th of a “Natural Born Citizen” and at the same time that the 14th was ratified, wouldn’t Article 2 have needed to be amended to qualify a non-natural born citzen?

That would be a great argument if there was a concrete definition of "natural born citizen" in Article 2, expressly requiring jus sanguinas citizenship to be considered a "natural born citizen". But there isn't. So what you're left with is the common-sense reading of the 14th Amendment that offers citizenship at birth. And in addition to that, you've got reams of legislation and even Supreme Court precedent hold the exact same thing.

The Supreme Court already addressed this issue in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which dates all the way back to 1898. Feel free to read up on it, but essentially, the Supreme Court said that a man of Chinese descent, born of two Chinese citizens in the U.S., was a "native-born citizen".

Now there are plenty of reasons why you could disagree with that decision, and argue that it should be overturned or changed by Amendment. I do myself. But that has been the law in this country, as defined by the Supreme Court, since 1898, and you can't go simply back and revoke the citizenship status of any person granted citizenship under that precedent, which is really what you're advocating.

662 posted on 01/11/2011 9:41:32 AM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies ]


To: Bruce Campbells Chin

Native Born does not Natural Born make...


663 posted on 01/11/2011 1:14:17 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | 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