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

To: edge919

See post 134. Vattel was writing philosophy, not law, and taking one sentence from his book that used ‘native’ and ‘indigenous’ and turning it into the one and only accepted legal definition of NBC is dishonest.


135 posted on 06/15/2010 10:31:13 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers

A study of Anglo-Saxon language & conversion to English (1818) Bosworth, London England

citizen/Freeman = a kinsman, a relation, an heir, (derived from ancient Roman customs & laws)

subject = inferior, under a ruler or king (derived from barbarian conquerers)

and do not confuse freedman to freeman, they are 2 very distinct persons, the former being a slave or a subject

http://books.google.com/books?id=uCUSAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q=freeman&f=false


150 posted on 06/16/2010 9:17:10 AM PDT by patlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers

Sorry, MrRogers, but the Supreme Court used a definition of native and natural born to be equivalent with Vattel’s definition of “native” and/or “indigenous.” They used his definition nearly verbatim. Native, in this case, means to be born in a country to citizen parents, specifically a citizen father. Of this there is no doubt. The 14th amendment did not resolve ANY doubt anyone being born to noncitizens being = to natural born.


151 posted on 06/16/2010 9:27:09 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | 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