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

To: CWW

“Don’t practice law without a license champ. Since the Supreme Court decided U.S. v Wong Kim Ark in 1898, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as conferring citizenship on anyone born in the U.S. Who are legally present in the U.S. Regardless of their parents’ citizenship status. The 14th amendment trumps the naturalization act, which by the way, has been amended many times now.
Get over it. You’re not a lawyer. Focus on the real issues of the lousy economy and Obama’s failure as a president...”

Amen! It is crystal clear to anyone who has even a vague understanding of the law that the Wong Kim decision makes anyone born in the US a citizen at birth.

There is no NBC v. citizen-by-birth-in-the-US distinction. And there is no official document that makes such a distinction.

There is 0, none, zero, nada mention in the Constitution requiring both parents to be citizens of the US to be a NBC elligible to be president. What we have is Article 2, the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, and the US code defining citizenship pursuant to powers granted to Congress in Article 1. The Supremacy Clause says these count and Vatel or whoever doesn’t. End of story.


72 posted on 04/27/2011 8:18:45 PM PDT by Lou Budvis (Refudiate 0bama '12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: Lou Budvis

Don’t slander Vattel. He never wrote about natural born citizens. Birthers take his quote out of context, mis-translate it, and then pretend he supports their ridiculous claims.

Vattel was innocent. Birthers are not.


87 posted on 04/27/2011 9:49:16 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 72 | 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