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

To: Jeff Winston

This argument is moot anyway. Two Presidents thus far, Obama and Arthur, have not met this definition of “natural born citizen.”

No court in this land would define “natural born citizen” in this way because of the uncertainty and upheaval it would create.


630 posted on 03/09/2013 5:50:49 PM PST by HawkHogan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies ]


To: HawkHogan
No court in this land would define “natural born citizen” in this way because of the uncertainty and upheaval it would create.

But my point is that the entire heavy weight of all history and law is against this claim.

And there is simply no credible evidence to support it. Just a big pile of twisted quotes, misreadings, and birther wishful thinking.

It's not a matter of uncertainty or upheaval. The claim that natural born citizen takes birth on us soil plus citizen parents is simply, flat out false.

633 posted on 03/09/2013 5:56:25 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies ]

To: HawkHogan
No court in this land would define “natural born citizen” in this way because of the uncertainty and upheaval it would create.

Your argument has nothing to do with what is correct law. It only has to do with the consequences of a judgement which people don't like. It shares this characteristic with the O.J. Simpson trial. Many predicted riots if O.J. was found guilty.

The point is irrelevant to what are the facts. We do not believe in rulings based on threats in this nation.

1,041 posted on 03/11/2013 8:19:50 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | 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