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

To: Springfield Reformer

Go ahead and show us some of your legal evidence that Natural Born Citizen means anything other than Native Born Citizen i.e. born within the jurisdiction of a particular sovereign.


62 posted on 01/30/2016 7:34:08 PM PST by RC one ("...all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens" US v. WKA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: RC one

Prove a negative? I don’t think so. First, you show me binding legal precedent that affirmatively states what NBC means. You can’t. Traditionally, nations have used various combinations of jus soli and jus sanguinis, Roman, French, British, many others. There is simply no basis to assume the founders had only Vattell in mind when they wrote what they did. Indeed, the Naturalization Act of 1790 may be the only time, and only for 5 years, that even a partial definition of NBC existed in statutory form, and that definition comports with the Cruz theory of jus sanguinis NBC status. As that document was created by the founding generation, the very men who put our Constitution together, it has substantial weight. But even so, that weight is only persuasive, not binding, because even that partial definition is no longer on the books. But it does provide insight to what the founders believed, and that evidence suggests they were not opposed to natural born status emerging from parentage alone.

Peace,

SR


78 posted on 01/30/2016 8:15:06 PM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | 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