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

To: NaturalBornConservative
Your post is well-written. It is also irrelevant.

Your post is about what the law should be, not what it is.

The Supremes have never ruled precisely on the "natural-born" issue, but it really isn't difficult to examine the rulings they have made and deduce how they likely would rule. Which would be that natural-born is the same as native-born, leaving us with two categories of citizenship, not three.

19 posted on 03/10/2009 12:44:22 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan

The Constitution itself mentions three (3) so are you saying that it doesn’t? Do you defy the words printed in black in white that are before you? Let me spell them out for you:

1. Citizen
2. Naturalized Citizen
3. Natural Born Citizen

Only one of the above applies to the offices of President and Vice President. In case you still don’t get it, that would be #3. That’s what is being discussed here, not citizenship rights, and definitely not British Common Law, which we Americans detest to this day.


20 posted on 03/11/2009 10:08:14 PM PDT by NaturalBornConservative (Vattel was a proponent of 'Natural Law' as were the 'Framers')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | 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