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

To: BladeBryan
In any case, the report is for Congress.

But it begs the question as to "why"?? Congress didn't care about the definition of NBC in 2008. Why do they care now?? Why do they need a report that expands the definition beyond even the most twisted interpretation of Wong Kim Ark?? And why do we take the legal advice of one guy, when a 9-0 decision defined NBC exclusively as all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens??? Jack Maskell does NOT trump the Supreme Court.

45 posted on 12/01/2011 10:12:38 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: edge919

edge919 wrote: “But it begs the question as to ‘why’?? Congress didn’t care about the definition of NBC in 2008. Why do they care now??”

Quite likely they’re getting letters from constituents. They probably got a few in 2008, but remember that until late in 2008, October or November, no one held the two-citizen-parent theory. The eligibility of the native-born may have been in doubt before the 14’th Amendment and its interpretation in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but not in our time.

edge919 wrote: “And why do we take the legal advice of one guy, when a 9-0 decision defined NBC exclusively as all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens???”

So quote that “exclusively” part of your favorite decision there. Show where, even in dicta, the Court said *only* that class are NBC.

Congress employs experts such as Maskell because Congress need real experts, not pretenders.

edge919 wrote: “Jack Maskell does NOT trump the Supreme Court.”

Darn sure trumps birthers.


51 posted on 12/02/2011 4:01:51 AM PST by BladeBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | 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