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

To: Mr Rogers

“The Court makes no distinction between “native born” and “natural born citizen”.”
That’s an interesting statement.


10 posted on 04/24/2010 9:30:28 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
“The Court makes no distinction between “native born” and “natural born citizen”.”

That’s an interesting statement.
The terms "natural born" and "native born" were often used interchangeably, to mean the same as natural born continues to mean. It's native born that has changed meaning over the years, especially since the 14th amendment became a factor. "Native born" does not appear in the Constitution, while "natural born" of course does.
87 posted on 04/24/2010 1:53:51 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra; Mr Rogers

Neither does Vittal...

May I remind you that both the court’s and Vittals Native Born means Born to Natives....ie citizens,

To Vittal Native Born and Natural Born are the same person ie. Born in the country to 2 Citizens.....don’t believe me? Read Vittals Law of Nations.....

212. Citizens and natives.”.....The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens......”

While you use the term native as merely jus solis, born in country with any referance to parentage....

quite a difference between your idea of a Native, and both the Court’s and Vittal’s usage of the term.........


148 posted on 04/24/2010 7:43:53 PM PDT by Forty-Niner ((.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | 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