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

To: justiceseeker93

YOU are the one denying the facts. I’ve posted the link to WKA, and explained why it means that...and every court, state and Congress has backed MY interpretation of WKA, not yours.

Sorry, but you don’t get to make up facts. They have said what they said, and in a 1983 decision went so far as to suggest that a NBC could have 2 ILLEGAL aliens for parents - which would go well beyond the argument in WKA.


105 posted on 08/25/2010 12:06:24 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers
...in a 1983 decision went so far as to say that a NBC could have 2 ILLEGAL aliens for parents...

I presume you are talking about some Supreme Court decision. Will you kindly cite the case for me, and quote the relevant passage from that decision, so we can determine if they actually said what you presume they did?

108 posted on 08/25/2010 12:22:57 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers

You seem to have forgotten these clear words of Justice Gray and the Wong Kim Ark Court:

“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: ‘The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”

And these are the words from Minor v. Happersett and Justice Waite that the Court and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark cited from, are they not:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Is Justice Gray and his Wong Court in his own words accepting or rejecting Justice Waite and the Minor Court’s definition of “natural born citizen”???

I don’t know what army you served in, or what constitution you took an oath to, but we here in the States are under our Constitution and are American citizens — not British subjects. You may be a British subject — but we’re not.

Try the facts and the truth for once.


110 posted on 08/25/2010 12:29:41 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | 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