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

To: BladeBryan; Mr Rogers
Both the Minor and the Wong Kim Ark Courts stated that the definition of "natural born citizen" could not be found in the text of the Constitution itself. Both those statements were made following the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Consequently, the Supreme Court has twice stated that the 14th Amendment does not define the meaning of "natural born citizen."
112 posted on 07/05/2011 12:38:49 AM PDT by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]


To: sourcery; edge919

You can continue on in your delusion that Minor defined NBC, but there isn’t a court in the land that will follow your delusions. Nor is there a single state or state DA that will follow it. Nor has any Congressman, any one of which could have raised an objection to Obama’s election.

The plain English of the one paragraph in the decision is that they did NOT try to determine the meaning of NBC, beyond applying it to the woman in the case, who had citizen parents.

WKA most definitely DID apply it to a man born of Chinese parents. They did not spend half of the decision discussing something totally irrelevant. And the dissent recognized the meaning, complaining that the decision would allow the child of a tourist to become President.

Can I make you understand that? No.

But what you should be able to understand is that your essay was full of BS. Naturalized citizens are not NBC, not have they ever been held to be that under the law. And while you can pretend Minor defines NBC, or that it was not a known term PRIOR to the Constitution, no court will ever agree. Indeed, the idea that the Founders used a term no one had ever heard of or knew the meaning of in the Constitution is just stupid.

If you would be honest, WKA gives a good but partial summary of the history of the term NBC. Lynch in 1844 went into more detail, but no court has ever found that the citizenship of the parents impacts the citizenship of the child under US law, if the child was born here.

But you go on with your delusions. You will anyway, you won’t get anywhere because no court has or ever will agree with you.

“The Constititional Convention didn’t include a definition of “natural born citizen” precisely because they didn’t see themselves as in the dictionary business, and because their understanding of the law of nations meant that there was a natural definition of that term which was (in their view) based on reason and first principles, and which their ethic impelled them to leave in that state.”

No, they didn’t define it because the meaning was well established, and known by the states that had started using NBC as a word for word replacement of NBS in their own citizenship laws. The Founders were not following a bad translation of Vattel made in 1797, but common legal use at the time of the writing.


122 posted on 07/05/2011 6:54:10 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 112 | 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