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

To: bvw

“Scott was settled law, John Brown voiced the decision that finally settled it, BY THE PEOPLE.”

No, John Brown did NOT correct the Supreme Court. As a matter of law, it was settled by amending the Constitution. Feel free to try to pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring the President to have two citizen parents.

However, in WKA, the Court made a powerful argument about what the original intent of the Founders was - that the common law term “natural born subject” provided several hundred years of precedence and was a well established legal phrase, which the Founders adjusted for a Republic and inserted into the Constitution as “Natural Born Citizen”.

As such, having alien parents is no bar to becoming President of the US, provided you are born in the USA. That WAS the Founder’s intent, unless they were stupid in picking their terms. Not Vattel, but the normal language of the law of the day provides the key to understanding it.

The power of WKA’s dicta is based on the power of the reasoning about what the Founder’s intended.

When you pretend it was established law that two citizen parents were required, you ignore history, the law and the Constitution, which includes the 14th Amendment.


66 posted on 10/13/2010 1:20:44 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers

No Amendment settled what Scott left to hang. That’s why after the 14th (which never meant in regard birth in the US that citizenship automatically followed by law of man or of nature) that the blood continued to be spilled.

When a head court makes a foolish and wrong decision, and being men not gods, they do, they did, they will, at times the decision is so dangerously flawed that only redemption is in blood and destruction. So was Scott.

It is to the people, “in the Course of Human Events becoming necessary,” to correct such wrong decisions. Rarely is such correction as simple as a magic law or constitutional amendment.


67 posted on 10/13/2010 1:29:10 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers
However, in WKA, the Court made a powerful argument about what the original intent of the Founders was - that the common law term “natural born subject” provided several hundred years of precedence and was a well established legal phrase, which the Founders adjusted for a Republic and inserted into the Constitution as “Natural Born Citizen”.

There's nothing in the decision that says any such thing. You're connecting dots that WKA CAREFULLY avoided connecting.

68 posted on 10/13/2010 2:30:12 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | 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