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

To: YellowRoseofTx

“’If he was born here, he’s a citizen.’

‘This is where you are confusing ‘citizen’ for ‘Natural born citizen’ There is a big difference’”

No, if anything they were confusing born citizens with natural born citizens. But since there’s no difference, there’s no confusion. Obviously, there is a difference between citizens and natural born citizens, since as everyone knows naturalized citizens exist. You ought to have noticed the previous poster’s use of the word “born,” though, and realized they weren’t talking about the naturalized.


99 posted on 11/12/2010 5:50:22 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: Tublecane
Talk to Scalia. Every word in the Constitution has meaning and you can't just dismiss one because you personally feel it is superfluous. By definition there is no such thing as a superfluous Constitutional word. You cannot simply strike out "natural-born" and keep the "citizen" part. Natural-born has specific meaning and Vattell gives us the most appropriate definition (post 27).

As to "subject to the jurisdiction" that goes beyond simply being subject to arrest for jaywalking or violating any other law. Read this: The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans. And, oh boy, does that article raise an interesting issue if an Indian (no pun intended) - ok, Native American - tries to run.

166 posted on 11/12/2010 6:40:26 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | 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