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

To: Mr. Blonde

Maybe, maybe not; but that has nothing to do with Constitutional requirements for Presidential eligibility. I have no idea why you even brought it up.


40 posted on 11/14/2009 3:59:48 AM PST by SatinDoll (NO Foreign Nationals as our President!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: SatinDoll

Because guaranteed they are going to look at it if they ever take this case. The laws of citizenship that most people in America at the time the constitution was written would have been familiar with are certainly something worth considering.

And with the likelihood they would practice a little bit of ends based jurisprudence, they are definitely going to consider the laws which most help them achieve their ends. Its all well and good that yall think Vattel is the intended definition, but with no explicit evidence of it, I can’t see them using it.


41 posted on 11/14/2009 7:06:08 AM PST by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: SatinDoll

Maybe, maybe not; but that has nothing to do with Constitutional requirements for Presidential eligibility

~~~~

True .. Wong Kim Ark wasn’t a candidate for potus;
therefore, that consideration was never a basis for
the ruling for his citizenship issue.


57 posted on 11/16/2009 9:53:54 PM PST by STARWISE (They (LIBS-STILL) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war- Richard Miniter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | 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