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

To: El Sordo

That’s been decided a long time ago, but a few refuse to accept reality:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

All four of these cases held essentially the samr definition: That two citizen parents are require.

But the squirmers try to find a wiggle word somewhere in the decisions to frasp at rather than just accepting what the court held four times.


58 posted on 07/16/2011 7:46:48 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: editor-surveyor

Actually, the US vs Wong Kim Ark supports the opposite. The court ruled that determining the citizenship was up to English common law because the Constitution did not offer it. And under English common law, there were only 3 ways that a person born in England would not be a citizen of England:

Born to foreign diplomats
Born on foreign ships
Born to parents who were citizens of a nation that was at war with England

There is nothing about having two parents be citizens for their child to be natural born. And the Courts ruling actually further stated that even though his parents were foreigners, Ark was a US citizen.


80 posted on 07/16/2011 8:39:10 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ 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