Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: El Gato
"When did they disagree? I'm not aware of any ruling on the parameters of "natural born citizen" as regards to Art. I Section 2 eligibility. It's just never come up before."

I was referring (implicitly) to the Donofrio v. Wells case and SCOTUS's refusal to grant cert, without comment. The substance of Donofrio's case, as I'm sure you are aware, has nothing to do with his place of birth - in fact, I believe he stipulates that it's HI - and everything to do with the "natural born" clause.

But, you're right insomuch that this "natural born" citizen clause and it's contemporary relevance to presidential eligibility has never been fully - or even partially - litigated. It doesn't appear that's going to change in the foreseeable future.

284 posted on 08/29/2009 1:11:09 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies ]


To: OldDeckHand

Over at Fort Hood, there was a SGT who refused to deploy because the Afghanistan war was “illegal and immoral.” I’m having a hard time seeing why CPT Rhodes is and different from SGT Bishop.


287 posted on 08/29/2009 1:23:28 PM PDT by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies ]

To: OldDeckHand

“I was referring (implicitly) to the Donofrio v. Wells case and SCOTUS’s refusal to grant cert, without comment.” He (& Cort) had the wrong defendants.


300 posted on 08/29/2009 1:57:26 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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