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

To: Danae
I am asking a question, and you are “answering” about something else, so no, not on the same page.

So McCain, not a NBC either? In 2008 of both nominees by the two major parties; neither fit the Vattel definition of “native/natural or indigenous” that being that both parents be citizens and that the child be born on the soil of the nation.

It is good that you see that the laws of other nations are not the ultimate source and arbiter of U.S. law and who will be a natural born citizen of our nation according to that law.

Does it occur to you that Vattel is also not the ultimate source and arbiter of U.S. law?

58 posted on 02/17/2011 5:04:13 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: allmendream
I happen to believe that McCain has the same problem Obama does, but for different reasons. There is also a BIG difference, McCain got a nonbinding resolution stating that he was a Natural Born Citizen. Which means he would stand a pretty good chance of not facing a problem meeting the eligibility requirements.

I think both the candidates had the same general problem, but McCain was on better footing with regard to the issue, but that was by no means bedrock. I believe this may be the reason McCain didn't bring up the issue in the campaign.

I am far more aware than you appear to be, on the matter of which documents the founders relied upon in their definition of Natural Born Citizen, and WHY they chose the term, with its very specific meaning.

62 posted on 02/17/2011 5:11:04 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | 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