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

To: Ray76

From Minor v Happersett:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SOLVE THESE DOUBTS.


And in the 2012 Arizona ballot challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility:
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. CONTRARY TO PLAINTIFF’S ASSERTION, MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), DOES NOT HOLD OTHERWISE.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint


232 posted on 04/02/2013 10:12:21 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies ]


To: Nero Germanicus; Jeff Winston
 photo books1_zpsaecb06a5.png
266 posted on 04/03/2013 1:06:21 AM PDT by ObligedFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | 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