Posted on 10/24/2011 10:02:42 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
Humm. That ought to be interesting.
This is an example of why it's difficult to take you guys seriously after a while. You're asking me to believe that when St. George Tucker, a man who fought at Yorktown, studied law under a signer of the Declaration, served as a judge in Virginia, and taught law at William and Mary--that when this man referred to the Constitutional requirement "that the president shall be a native-born citizen," he used a phrase that's not in the Constitution and, in fact, is an insufficient requirement (in your view) for the presidency--why? Just to confuse the issue? Because he forgot what the Constitution actually said?
On the other hand, maybe Tucker knew that "native born" and "natural born" were the same thing. Hmm, which seems more likely...?
if you’re trying to imply that a person that has an impressive set of positions cannot be in error...
might i point you to the current harvard grad that is occupying the office of the president?
need i point you towards the vice president’s office?
Hey, you're the one who posted his quote in the first place. I was just pointing out that it contradicted the assertion you were trying to make.
Are you brain damaged?
Or believe it. I regard the issue of "Anchor Babies" and the correct meaning of "natural born citizen" are simply different aspects of the exact same issue. This is why I am constantly pointing out the Article by George Will, and the other Article by Ann Coulter, which addresses the issue of Anchor babies, to demonstrate that they agree with us completely in theory, even though they absolutely refuse to support the "birther" position otherwise.
I read that part of Minor as: Children born in a country of parents who were its citizens are natural born citizens.
Other read it as: Natural born citizens are children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.
From where I sit it's a difference of: These belong in this class vs. This class consists of these.
As for the accusations of “scrubbing”, I see no reason to think someone would have thought this would be useful when there are numerous other on-line legal libraries as well as hard copies in public libraries around the nation. To suspect foul play because of an error on the Internet strains the bounds of credulity for me.
Well, perhaps if you knew more about Justia’s place in the legal world... would that help any?
Dunno. It would certainly be interesting to know.
Especially if is has a comparative approach with other sources like the Cornell Law Library. That’s the one I have tended to use.
>The law is for lawyers.
But the Supreme Law, the Constitution, is for the People.
For if the Constitution requires a magical black robe to understand, then how can it ever restrict those wearing black robes?
(And it clearly does, with the separation of powers, AND the binding of the judges of the several States to itself in Art 6.)
There is a new Donofrio ping. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2799017/posts?page=2
Oh yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.