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

To: John Valentine; Greetings_Puny_Humans; Carry_Okie

‘The mother’s became equally determinative.’ — 14th Amendment.

I hope you are right. But was that based on widened court interpretation?

Carry Okie — did the 14th Amendment clearly or arguably change natural born status? Give the mother equal status regarding ‘natural born’?


46 posted on 01/16/2016 5:03:45 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March (1000 muslim migrant gang-rapists in Germany -- Trump helped trigger protests.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: Arthur Wildfire! March; Carry_Okie

See reference to Vattel.


52 posted on 01/16/2016 5:07:58 AM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
did the 14th Amendment clearly or arguably change natural born status? Give the mother equal status regarding 'natural born'?

In defining what an Article II natural born Citizen is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of "natural born Citizen" in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment's "citizen" to Article II's "natural born Citizen." But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer "natural born citizen" status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

65 posted on 01/16/2016 5:16:01 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Carry Okie - did the 14th Amendment clearly or arguably change natural born status?

Not that I can see in the text, in that it confers citizenship without exclusion; i.e., it doesn't say a person of American parentage born outside the US is specifically not a citizen, leaving that point open to a matter of Natural Law. For any more than that, one would have to consult the Congressional Globe (the Congressional Record of its day) for debating points and such.

For all who are interested, the dissenting opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark is a very impressive analysis of British and American law as regards birthright citizenship. The opinion begins with this very question.

153 posted on 01/16/2016 7:47:33 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ 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