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

To: PA-RIVER

James Madison was talking about the concept of allegiance to the United States in general. He was not referring to any presidential candidate or president.
Would you be so kind as to post a quote from a Founding Father which states that two American citizen parents are required under the Constitution in order to meet the Article Two, Section 1 natural born citizen provision.

And we know from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Minor v. Happersett that: “The Constitution does not say in words who shall be ‘natural born citizens.’ Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.” {1874}

And we know from the government’s brief for the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that the government asked the High Court to decide:
“Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”

The government’s attorney went on to say that: “To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation—a right of all aliens—yet he was not born subject to the “political jurisdiction” thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector.”

The Justices of the Supreme Court disagreed, six to two.


119 posted on 03/10/2014 10:53:42 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies ]


To: Nero Germanicus
One of the prime rules of Constitutional construction, used and affirmed many times by the SCOTUS, is verba intelligi ut aliquid operantur debent or words should be interpreted to give them some effect.

That means that when determining what the Constitution is trying to say, you must consider every word to have a purpose. Therefore, those people that try to equate the term-of-art "natural born Citizen", to mean "Citizen at birth", are flat out wrong. Because that definition ignores the word 'natural'. If that is what the writers of the Constitution wanted, they simply would have wrote 'born Citizen' or 'Citizen at birth'.

So, what does the word natural add to phrase 'natural born Citizen'? It's actually very clear. There are two basic forms of law, positive law and natural law - here is legal defintion - http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1552 . So, what the term "natural born Citizen" means, is clear - a Citizen at birth acording to natural law.

Who is a citizen according to natural law? Simple again, anyone who would be a Citizen without any positive law. Because man can not create natural law, or a "natural born Citizen".

So, if there is a law that has been written that grants Citizenship to a person (even if from birth), and that person would not be Citizen had that law never been written, then that person is not a "natural born Citizen". I don't see what's so difficult for some people to understand.
121 posted on 03/10/2014 11:48:51 AM PDT by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

To: Nero Germanicus

I would be so kind Dear Germanicus.

But I will have to refer to the quotes,as I type on. Mini phone that crushes my abilities.

David Ramsay speaks directly to Natural Born Citizen. Not in regards to president, but naturally, this is a direct hit.

We also have John Jay with his description, that can only fit two citizen parents, with the knowledge that his term replaced Born Citizen, on the very day he wrote the note.

Washington then accepted his suggestion, along with everyone else in the room. We call that evidence.

They effectively erased Born citizen
As a requirement, much to your dismay.

So we do have quotes directly attributable to the founders.

On top of that, we have had one single attempt to redefine NBC. But that attempt failed.

Let’s try to understand why it failed

It requires a constitutional amendment to change it.
None has been made.

There is no law on the books, redefining the founders intent.

There is no founder, on record. Other than Ramsay and John Jay, describing NBC. None.

If you have a quote from a founder, with Natural as its description, let us have it.


122 posted on 03/10/2014 11:50:41 AM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

To: Nero Germanicus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-AsXFAp2tI&feature=kp

The Beatles, Act Naturally.

If a person has two personalties, How do you know if they are acting Naturally?

I repeat:

If a person has two personalties, How do you know if they are acting Naturally?

Enjoy Dear Germanicus, its been a pleasure. Naturally.


126 posted on 03/10/2014 12:52:01 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | 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