Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: John Valentine; plain talk

“Just an opi[ni]on but I think Supremes would rule that a natural born citizen is anyone born here regardless of their parents.” {PT}

“What on Earth leads you that that bizarre conclusion? The Supremes do have a history of actually reading and applying the Constitution, after all, and they ARE sworn to do so. {JV}

********************

SCOTUS declined to hear Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases, in essence upholding the (by practice) precedent that “natural-born” = “citizen at birth”. The 10th Circuit just did the same in upholding the dismissal of Craig’s lawsuit.

They added that nobody has the right to have his definition of “natural-born” enshrined by the courts. Meaning you’ll have to look elsewhere.


55 posted on 08/26/2009 6:54:21 PM PDT by Redwood Bob (Peter Schiff for U.S. Senate 2010!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: Redwood Bob
They added that nobody has the right to have his definition of “natural-born” enshrined by the courts. Meaning you’ll have to look elsewhere.

Thanks for posting that info. Not directing this to you but it seems like an odd response. The Constitution uses the term and it seems that somehow our government should have an official definition of the term and what it means.

56 posted on 08/26/2009 7:52:02 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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