Obot exposed — kukaniloko
See here for more:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2365423/posts?page=150#150
- and -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2365423/posts?page=156#156
Free Republic: kukaniloko, since Oct 10, 2009.
The English translations of The Law of Nations available to the drafters did not include the term “natural born.” Blackstone had “natural born subject” and the law of England at the time defined “natural born subject” as born on English soil (with some exceptions for the children of diplomats of invaders) or statutorily a subject at birth (so children of the English born oversses would be “natiral born subjects”). A fair reading of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution could be analogous to “natural born subject”, with either born on U.S. soil or statutorily a citizen at birth. The 1790 statute indicated that Congress was thinking this way. 8 of the 11 of the Committee of 11 that imported “natural born citizen” into the Constitution were members of the 1790 Congress and there is no record of any of the 8 objecting to the use of “natural born” in the 1790 statute.
See here for more:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2365423/posts?page=150#150
- and -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2365423/posts?page=156#156
Free Republic: kukaniloko, since Oct 10, 2009.
