Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: bushpilot1

Well, since you pinged me:

Here is a online version. I don’t feel like reading the whole thing, but at N, under “Natives”, you find:

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouviern.txt

” 4.-2. Persons born within the United States, since the Revolution, may be classed into those who are citizens, and those who are not.

5.-1st. Natives who are citizens are the children of citizens, and of aliens who at the time of their birth were residing within the United States.

6. The act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, approved April 14, 1802, Sec. 4, provides that the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States” But, the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided in the United States.

7.-2d. Natives who are not citizens are, first, the children of ambassadors, or other foreign ministers, who, although born here, are subjects or citizens of the government of their respective fathers.

Secondly, Indians, in general, are not citizens. Thirdly, negroes, or descendants of the African race, in general, have no power to vote, and are not eligible to office. “

This pretty well tracks with the majoritarian view of the Wong Kim Ark court in 1898 , and the Ankeny court in 2009.

parsy


60 posted on 05/14/2010 6:33:31 PM PDT by parsifal (I will be sent to an area where people are demanding free speech and I will not like it there. Orly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: parsifal

If this definition applied to all children born of aliens, there was no need for the 14th amendment.


63 posted on 05/14/2010 6:40:36 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: parsifal

Seems as time goes by..the meaning.and intent of the Founders slowly fades away into the abyss.

Jefferson was concerned this would happen and it seems it has...”immigrants will bring the principles of government they leave..they will infuse into our legislation..their spirit, warp and bias its direction..and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass..”


66 posted on 05/14/2010 6:47:02 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: parsifal

I seem to remember you getting a reprimand because of what you were posting on eligibility threads.

I also remember you stating you would stay away?????

Did you think some of us would forget?


110 posted on 05/14/2010 10:50:11 PM PDT by Aurorales (I will not be ridiculed into silence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: parsifal
This pretty well tracks with the majoritarian view of the Wong Kim Ark court in 1898 , and the Ankeny court in 2009.

Wong Kim Ark, yes. Ankeny cout, not so much. The words "natural born" are nowhere to be found in that edition of Bouveirs. It uses "native" to mean born in the country. and even counts the children of foreign ambassadors as "natives". You are surely not arguing that the son of the Saudi Ambassador, born in the US of the ambassadors 4th wife, is a natural born citizen, eligible to the office of President, are you?

This section, which speaks of the children of aliens born in the US, declares them to citizens, not natural born citizens.

Natives who are citizens are the children of citizens, and of aliens who at the time of their birth were residing within the United States.

288 posted on 05/15/2010 10:40:07 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson