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

To: edge919

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, natural-born citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”

Wow. That was hard. The court is telling what the common law was.

Now your turn. Go to WKA and tell us about where the court went when it went elsewhere, and what it said, and don’t skip down 50 pages past all the stuff you don’t want to admit to. Hop to it now!


596 posted on 10/22/2011 12:42:31 AM PDT by Squeeky ("Truth is so rare that it is delightful to tell it. " Emily Dickinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies ]


To: Squeeky
Wow. That was hard. The court is telling what the common law was

Do you not know what the word "citation" means?? The definition here, as has been shown, matches the natural law of nations, not English common law. There's no citatin of English common law ANYWHERE in the passage you quoted. You're supporting my argument AGAIN. Thank.

Further, this isn't the part Gray was talking about. He said Waite used common law when construing the birth provision of the 14th amendment. This isn't about the birth provision, but about NBC which is found outside the Constitution. Again, the challenge to YOU is to find ANY citations of English common law that were used to construe the birth provision in the 14th amendment. You've failed.

597 posted on 10/22/2011 11:37:17 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | 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