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

To: Mr Rogers; bobjam

you are just wrong.

being born in the US makes you a citizen. at least a naturalized citizen.

if both parents are citizens at that time, then you are a natural born citizen.

if this was not the case, then any foreign dictator could squat a child on our shores, raise them elsewhere, and put them in the office. this was the situation the founders were pushing to avoid. hence the language.


63 posted on 04/27/2011 7:38:45 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: sten

And the ‘intent’ that all the legalese tries desperately to ignore.


64 posted on 04/27/2011 7:41:04 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: sten

page 246)
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

(pg 250)
6. Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)

“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”

Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

If you don’t know what a naturalized citizen is, perhaps you should read more before posting.


66 posted on 04/27/2011 7:45:59 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: sten

I stand by my answer.


96 posted on 04/28/2011 3:00:10 AM PDT by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]

To: sten

“being born in the US makes you a citizen. at least a naturalized citizen.”

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n039.htm

Here’s a clue about what a “naturalized citizen” is.


97 posted on 04/28/2011 5:45:01 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | 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