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

To: rxsid

Correct. As previously stated, the Constitution mentions two types of citizens, and only two.


And courts have ruled that “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” are synonomous terms. The other category is “naturalized” citizen.


163 posted on 01/15/2010 4:28:40 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies ]


To: jamese777
"And courts have ruled that “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” are synonomous terms. "

What court(s) have made the two synonymous, especially with regards to the qualifications for POTUS?

165 posted on 01/15/2010 4:31:43 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies ]

To: jamese777; rxsid
“And courts have ruled that “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” are synonomous terms.”

Wrong.

In the Minor case, SCOTUS identified two types of citizen at birth on US soil as of the date of their ruling:

1. Children of US citizen fathers about which there “is no doubt” that they are NBC.

2. Children of foreign citizen fathers about which there “is doubt” that they are NBC.

These are two distinct classes of “citizen at birth” who are not in the naturalized category. The doubt in the Minor case was not resolved in Wong because SCOTUS could not “reach” that determination in the case before it. And that doubt established in Minor remains unresolved, as far as I can see, because no subsequent, on point case has explicitly reached the NBC issue.

So there “is doubt” about Obama’s NBC status per SCOTUS in Minor.

195 posted on 01/16/2010 1:00:43 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | 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