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

To: Sallyven

When you live in the land of pirates, the Constitution is really a bit more like guidelines. Broken on a whim because of the wants of today.


2 posted on 02/20/2012 8:25:44 AM PST by LachlanMinnesota (Which are you? A producer, a looter, or a moocher of wealth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: LachlanMinnesota
Georgia's charter of 1732 recognized two types of persons at birth: the natural born subjects and denizens, based on your birthright ... or who you were born to:
wee Do for us our Heirs and Successors declare by these Presents that all and every the persons which shall happen to be born within the said Province and every of their Children and Posterity shall have and Enjoy all Liberties Franchises and Immunities of Free Denizens and natural born Subjects within any of our Dominions to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within this our Kingdom of Great Britain or any other of our Dominions

Denizens are basically legal alien residents, but they are not citizens, thus their children are born as free denizens. Lest there be any doubt that these are separate classes of inhabitants, the next quote from the charter affirms it.

... by these Presents Granted to the said Corporation unto such of loving Subjects Natural born or Denizens or others that shall be willing to become Subjects and live under our Allegiance in the said Colony upon such Terms

By their own state history, there's a difference in class between those who are natural-born and those who are born as legal residents ... the denizens. The birthright of "our heirs and successors" is divided by class. They didn't just say, "You were born here so now you are a natural-born subject," so the jus soli argument is defeated by this state's own historical legal compact.

8 posted on 02/20/2012 8:43:37 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: LachlanMinnesota

The blame can hardly be placed on the modern era alone. The entire natural-born clause has never been rigorously enforced. There was the election of Chester A. Arthur with a Canadian father in 1880. Charles Curtis’s mother didn’t hold American citizenship, and was in fact a Kaw, yet he was elected in 1928. Wikipedia has a long list of other potential presidential or VP candidates in major parties that had questions as to their qualifications as natural-born citizens, but who still ran. Heck, even on this forum, there are many who would like to see Rubio as a VP candidate, despite the fact that at his time of birth, neither of his parents held American citizenship.


12 posted on 02/20/2012 9:02:10 AM PST by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | 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