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

To: edge919

“Then he talks about what “nature has given” the child, which is not changed by the place of birth ... in all three instances, Vattel places emphasis on the father’s citizenship.”

And that is totally contrary to both English common law and American law.

“So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents.”

Yep. WKA was a native born citizen, which is another way of saying natural born citizen.


79 posted on 04/25/2011 10:48:48 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers
Only if you ignore the controlling authority of Story's opinion in Shanks v. Dupont which is what you are doing. Also see the rxsid post about WKA, which was not in any way about the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 phrase.
90 posted on 04/25/2011 11:41:48 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | 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