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

To: Danae
This case does NOT resolve the issue. From the case:

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] 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.

Whether "natural born citizens" includes children born within the borders without reference to the parents is in doubt but not resolved for purposes of this case.

30 posted on 10/20/2011 1:49:26 PM PDT by Armando Guerra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Armando Guerra
Whether "natural born citizens" includes children born within the borders without reference to the parents is in doubt but not resolved for purposes of this case.

NO, NO, NO. What is in 'doubt' is if they are CITIZENS, not natural born Citizens. The purpose of this passage is to acknowledge the issues of the infamous 14th Amendment - PERIOD.

The reason is it not necessary to solve is because Minor's citizenship was NOT based on the 14th Amendment. She was a citizen without the 14th Amendment. So the statement 'it is not necessary to solve these doubts.' means the judgment is simply not addressing the overly broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Why - because Minor WAS, BY DEFINITION IN THE RULING, a natural born Citizen.

What the ruling is saying is - "if you got your citizenship from the 14th Amendment you are specifically NOT a native or natural born Citizen." Native or natural born Citizen is specifically defined and specifically separated out from "anchor babies". THAT is what this passage is about. And that is why it specifically defines - legally - natural born Citizen.

Since Obama definitely belongs the class where 'there are doubts' by SCOTUS DEFINITION, he does not belong the class where there are no doubts - the class being that of native or natural born Citizen. And yes, the definition says 'parents' (PLURAL). Mommy alone does not get it done - BY SCOTUS DEFINITION.

94 posted on 10/20/2011 5:56:54 PM PDT by bluecat6 ( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | 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