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

To: DiogenesLamp; edge919

I don’t know if that BC is a forgery or not. If he was born on a military base, it still doesn’t mean he was born on U.S. soil.

From the Foreign Affairs manual:

7 FAM 1113 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF “IN THE UNITED STATES”

c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:

(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”


318 posted on 01/20/2012 4:33:51 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies ]


To: BuckeyeTexan
I was going by Vattel.


340 posted on 01/20/2012 5:02:35 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies ]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Ummmmm, yeah, nobody I know is actually using the 14th amendment to explain why McCain would be a citizen while born to a parent in service to the United States. For those who follow Vattel, this fits under the natural law definition for those born in the Armies of the state. I don’t have a strong feeling about it. Otherwise, McCain is covered under statutory law, and doesn’t fit the Supreme Court definition of natural-born citizen ... except that that definition does appear to match the general Law of Nations definition.


391 posted on 01/20/2012 6:54:23 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | 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