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

To: Conscience of a Conservative
That, and as I believe someone pointed out in one of the other threads on this topic, there are numerous examples of other cases/citations that are incorrect/missing from Justia.

They claim those were done to conceal the scrubbing of Minor.

46 posted on 10/24/2011 1:40:20 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: Kleon
Here you are on this thread too. Are you going to Answer my question?

Kleon writes:
Anyone hatching a plan to destroy the United States with their progeny 50 years down the line could just as easily become a citizen first, therefore making the child a natural born citizen under even the strictest definition.

And that "strictest definition" would be THIS ONE provided by the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett:

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

Do you not agree?

76 posted on 10/24/2011 7:38:01 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Obama is an "unnatural born citizen.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | 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