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

To: lucysmom
"Question: If Arthur's eligibility was questioned at the time, why wasn't the Constitutional meaning of Natural Born Citizen defined by law then?

A few questioned his place of birth. Donofrio showed this via newspaper records from the time. IIRC, nobody questioned the fact that his father was a foreign national when C.A. was born (I would assume because nobody knew his fathers status at the time or had reason to question it), who didn't become naturalized till C.A. was 14 y.o.

As far as why didn't they define the term then...that is a question for those around at the time. I would assume because the general public at large were unaware there were questions surrounding C.A. eligibility. Therefore, there was no need at the time.

101 posted on 02/25/2010 2:15:49 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 76 | View Replies ]


To: rxsid
As far as why didn't they define the term then...that is a question for those around at the time. I would assume because the general public at large were unaware there were questions surrounding C.A. eligibility. Therefore, there was no need at the time.

Maybe there were no questions because Arthur's status as a Natural Born Citizen was accepted as fact due to his birth on US soil and his mother's citizenship.

142 posted on 02/25/2010 7:39:29 PM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | 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