Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: philman_36

No, you’re just wrong. part 1401 does refer specifically to persons born in the U.S.


78 posted on 04/07/2011 11:02:58 PM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]


To: Ramius
No, you’re just wrong. part 1401 does refer specifically to persons born in the U.S.
Where did I say that it didn't?
All I said was..."And, once again, 1401 says nothing whatsoever about natural born citizenship."
If it does then showcase it. And explain how Congress overstepped it's Constitutional powers in the process.
82 posted on 04/07/2011 11:13:44 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]

To: Ramius

No, you’re just wrong. part 1401 does refer specifically to persons born in the U.S.

This has been hashed out dozens of times here in the past. part 1401 refers to persons born in the U.S., but it makes no mention anywhere in the entire document about the term or meaning of the term “natural born citizen”. “Natural Born Citizen” as used in the Constitution of the United States was clearly refering to a person born within the boarders of the United States with two citizen parents. Don’t feel bad you are not the only one who remains confused on this issue. I challenge you to search for the term “natural born” anywhere in the “United States Code”. Then report back here with your findings.


115 posted on 04/08/2011 9:50:09 PM PDT by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


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