Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: pissant
Which he promptly produced. A vault copy.

Which shows him being born in Colon, in the Republic of Panama; not in the Canal Zone, or on a US military base.

75 posted on 11/19/2008 3:51:09 PM PST by EternalVigilance ("Why lawyer up when you can pony up?" - IYAS9YAS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]


To: EternalVigilance

But that does not matter. He could have been born in Timbuktu. Both parents were US citizens.


78 posted on 11/19/2008 3:57:46 PM PST by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

To: EternalVigilance

“Which he promptly produced. A vault copy.
Which shows him being born in Colon, in the Republic of Panama; not in the Canal Zone, or on a US military base.”

Awww Geez ... not THIS sh*t again ...

Our system of laws is rooted in English Common Law. And the Founding Fathers followed it, unless there was an explicit deviation. Their concept of “original intent” devolved from it. They took the BEST of English Common Law and threw out the crap.

The definition of “natural born citizen” was NOT thrown out.

Per Blackstone in his Commentaries On English Common Law, a person born overseas to 2 natural born citizens who were in service to the Crown was a natural born citizen (Blackstone, Book 1. Chapter 10). You can look it up ...

BTW: SCOTUS commonly refers to Blackstone when deciding cases with historical roots.


117 posted on 11/19/2008 7:48:40 PM PST by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson