Replies

To: RC one; Leaning Right

Circular argument. He cannot subvert the definition of NBC given in the Constitution because no such definition is found in the Constitution.

Peace,

147 posted on 02/05/2016 10:39:54 PM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)

To: Springfield Reformer

He (Cruz) cannot subvert the definition of NBC given in the Constitution because no such definition is found in the Constitution.

Right you are. The Founders unwisely were not specific enough in this particular case. So if the Supreme Court rules that Cruz is natural-born, well, I guess I can live with that.

151 posted on 02/05/2016 10:43:32 PM PST by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)

To: Springfield Reformer

The constitution was written in the language of the English common law. if you don't understand that language, you don't understand the constitution. The English common law is clear on what it means to be a Natural Born Citizen and this was clear to the authors of the constitution and to the many legal scholars whose opinions I have previously provided in this thread.

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

153 posted on 02/05/2016 10:45:37 PM PST by RC one ("...all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens" US v. WKA)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794