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

To: RC one

To sum up,because I must leave in 5 min...

If you read through that Federalist blog post and were to accept what is says particularly regarding the 14th amendment.

My assertions are no different with one exception. I take into account the equal protection clause that came with the right to vote and legally contract the US constitution now guarantees to women.

In my view, that made Ted’s mother a legal grantee or transferee of her status to her son at birth.


86 posted on 01/16/2016 5:17:14 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]


To: Cold Heat
show me where the 14th amendment strings the words natural born citizen together.

If you look closely at it, you will see that it actually distinguishes between two types of Americans-American citizens that were born in the United States and Americans that weren't born in the United States just like Article II, section I, clause 5.

First 9 words. Read them a few times:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States

All persons born or naturalized in the United States

All persons born or naturalized in the United States

All persons born or naturalized in the United States

All persons born or naturalized in the United States

All persons born or naturalized in the United States

88 posted on 01/16/2016 5:25:10 AM PST by RC one (race baiting and demagoguery-if you're a Democrat it's what you do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

To: Cold Heat
The Naturalization Acts from 1790 and 1795 combine to tell us what a natural born citizen was NOT. Their final determination referred to someone born to citizens outside of United States jurisdiction as a citizen.

This is important because they had defined such a person as a natural born citizen in the act of 1790. That they repealed this definition and changed it to citizen tells us that the location of birth was important enough to cause a change in their definition. The result is that whatever they thought a natural born citizen was at the time, it WAS NOT someone born outside of United States jurisdiction.

91 posted on 01/16/2016 6:00:51 AM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

To: Cold Heat

Would you be equally committed to your position if Cruz had been born in Texas and Trump in Scotland?


93 posted on 01/16/2016 6:27:04 AM PST by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

To: Cold Heat

You make the fatal flaw by introducing equal protection but not maintaining the purpose of avoiding divided loyalty. If it’s to be father and mother, it’s both/and not either/or.


100 posted on 01/16/2016 6:51:13 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | 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