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

To: Ultra Sonic 007
If it means that much to you, advocate for Congress to introduce a statute, or for a Constitutional amendment, to codify the definition of “natural born citizen” that you desire.

This idea shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the natural law influence from whence the founders derived "natural born citizen."

"Natural law" was a big thing in 1776 and 1787. People nowadays do not even know what it is. They don't grasp this "natural law" stuff. They think you can pass a statute to change the laws of nature.

You cannot pass a statute to change the laws of nature.

19 posted on 01/13/2024 10:18:59 AM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp; woodpusher
You cannot pass a statute to change the laws of nature.

And who has argued that a statute can change the law of nature?

However, it is within the powers of a country to decide who counts as a citizen, and who gets the privileges accorded to a citizen. Such authority lies with the Congress.

The issue is that whatever disagreements there are regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen", the differences between "natural born citizen", "native-born citizen", and "citizen by birth" became de facto and de jure nil within a generation or two of the Founding Fathers, if not earlier; especially with regards to those born within America and subject to her jurisdiction.

You may cite various authorities regarding what the definition of "natural born citizen" is, whereas others will dispute your definition. If you don't want to leave differences of interpretation up to the Supreme Court, then you're going to need a Constitutional amendment codifying the meaning of the term.

That's just the way it is.

Also, i've posted that lawbook from Pennsylvania which flat out says our "citizenship" comes from Vattel, and the people most likely to know what was intended by the Convention (held in Philadelphia in 1787) was the Philadelphia legal community, which is exactly where that book came from.

Aren't you getting tired of citing the same book that you've been refuted on at least three times by my count?

21 posted on 01/13/2024 10:34:39 AM PST by Ultra Sonic 007 (There is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp; Ultra Sonic 007
"Natural law" was a big thing in 1776 and 1787. People nowadays do not even know what it is. They don't grasp this "natural law" stuff. They think you can pass a statute to change the laws of nature.

You cannot pass a statute to change the laws of nature.

https://youtu.be/xU6eTVZUWJg?si=oU7jzURl87HKg3d6

The Laws of Nature

48 posted on 01/13/2024 2:28:45 PM PST by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp
"Natural law" was a big thing in 1776 and 1787. People nowadays do not even know what it is. They don't grasp this "natural law" stuff. They think you can pass a statute to change the laws of nature.

You cannot pass a statute to change the laws of nature.

That's for sure! They think they can pass laws declaring a man is a woman!

65 posted on 01/13/2024 4:48:17 PM PST by thecodont
[ 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