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

To: Jeff Winston

Sorry this is not an accurate representation of the historical legal definition of natural born citizen. Historically legal scholars and the SCOTUS have followed Vatel’s “Law of Nations” definition of natural born citizen which is born in the US of two citizen parents.

The 14th ammendment had nothing to do with the natural born citizen definition. It was soley aimed at defining all of the former slaves as citizens.


556 posted on 03/09/2013 4:08:26 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies ]


To: Georgia Girl 2

“The 14th ammendment had nothing to do with the natural born citizen definition. It was soley aimed at defining all of the former slaves as citizens.”

Incorrect. It had everything to do with the natural born definition. It provided citizenship not just to the slaves, but to everyone who had been born outside America, in territory that had just become American (in Guadaloupe Hildago or in the Louisiana Purchase, to the Native Americans, etc.

The 14th made all of these groups and established the principle for the first time that all those who were born in America were considered to be citizens.


561 posted on 03/09/2013 4:11:56 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies ]

To: Georgia Girl 2
Sorry this is not an accurate representation of the historical legal definition of natural born citizen. Historically legal scholars and the SCOTUS have followed Vatel’s “Law of Nations” definition of natural born citizen which is born in the US of two citizen parents.

No. They absolutely have not.

You can do a google books search on "natural born citizen" and turn up literally HUNDREDS of historical quotes that support the definition I and folks like Mr Rogers have given. The same search turns up virtually nothing to indicate anyone of any real authority ever relied on Vattel.

The Vattel claim is ABSOLUTE, FLAT-OUT NONSENSE. It's simply false. There is no evidence to support it.

It is NOT "merely pinin' for the fjords." It's passed on. It is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker.

It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If a bunch of silly birthers hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies.

Its processes are now 'istory. It's off the twig.

It's kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible.

It is an EX-claim.

572 posted on 03/09/2013 4:23:54 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies ]

To: Georgia Girl 2

If that were the case, the amendment would have said “all persons previously held in the condition of slavery or involuntary servitude are citizens...” ( the same terms used in the 13th Amendment)
The 14th Amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Since 1868, it has applied to everyone. The landmark Supreme Court ruling on citizenship interpreting the 14th Amendment concerned a person of Chinese ethnicity who had two parents who were subjects of the Emperor of China but had a child born in the US who was ruled to be a Citizen at Birth.
Due to the Chinese Exclusion Act, he could not become a naturalized citizen in 1898.


576 posted on 03/09/2013 4:30:05 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | 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