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

To: BuckeyeTexan
The only citizens whose status as Constitutional natural born citizens is absolutely unquestionable are those born here to two citizen parents. Every other citizen's status is subject to interpretation.

That paraphrases the words of Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite in Minor v. Happersett, as well as numerous, prior Supreme Court Justices and several Founders themselves. It can't possibly be more clear, but here we sit going round and round with people who think statute law governs the birth status of the natural born.

Lawyers argue statute law, legal precedent and such, but the the inferior statutory law doesn't make a natural born citizen, the superior Constitutional law does; Natural Law is the basis of that Constitution, and God is the basis of Natural Law.

Can't go admitting that, now, can we, lol? It's against the fictional atheism of the separation of church and state. The Founders precluded a State church, such as the Church of England, that is what they did with the so-called "establisment clause." They did not countenance State-enforced atheism. Public, individual professions of a religious nature were common and widespread at the highest levels of government. The Mosaic Law was proudly and prominently displayed in a majority of courthouses, and still is.

This, combined with the likely preclusion of unfettered immigration by a correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment, provides us with the reasons for such a frenzied, irrational, spaghetti-against-the-wall propaganda front by those who would undo the Republic. They want the Republic absorbed into some thing more amenable to their ends.

The Constitution properly understood stands in their way. And, it's not all that inaccessible nor is it all that difficult to understand. Those who make it complex, difficult to understand and intricately detailed are those who seek to circumvent the plain meaning. The devil is in those details.

330 posted on 05/02/2010 12:54:14 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies ]


To: RegulatorCountry; BuckeyeTexan

“people who think statute law governs the birth status of the natural born.”

Speaking for myself, I think the common law of England in the 1700s IS relevant to what the Framers intended. Original intent needs to be found somewhere, and I don’t think one sentence in Vittel suffices.

“You purport to agree with the so-called “birther” definition of NBC, and yet you attack it at every turn. Explain yourself.”

I have, on multiple threads including this one. See post 313 on this thread.


333 posted on 05/02/2010 1:05:31 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies ]

To: RegulatorCountry

Thank you so much RC for that post! You have done a wonderful job expressing the core of truth in a very clear and concise way. Thank you, thank you, thank you!


361 posted on 05/02/2010 2:44:28 PM PDT by zzeeman (Fighting to not be the amongst the last generation to enjoy Freedom & Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | 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