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

To: W. W. SMITH

Second; the phrase “natural born” as used at that time was clearly understood by all to mean “ born on US soil of parents who are US citizens”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Understood by whom? The only person that understood it that way was Vattel. You know that is the truth because you go on to say: “Third; there was no ambiguity then (during the writing of the constitution).”

English common law was practiced in the colonies since day one. That was the CONTEXT of the time. That is what was common to the people. Vattel was just some recent philosopher born in 1714 and totally unheard of by the common populace. The framers used him for his ideas on international trade - nothing more. If they subscribed to his views on your 2 citizen parent rule, they would have written it that way because it was precisely AGAINST what was common knowledge.


233 posted on 05/23/2012 9:51:58 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies ]


To: New Jersey Realist

English common law was used until the adoption of the constitution. English common law was avoided as much as possible for two reasons, one we where at war with england and two the common law was oriented towards subjects, sovereignty and royalty making it a difficult fit for a free people in a brand new republic.
English common law is not a part of our constitution nor our laws per say. Out of necessity some definitions have been carried over. Natural born was not one of them.


234 posted on 05/23/2012 10:05:13 AM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Maybe the horse will learn to sing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies ]

To: New Jersey Realist

“Understood by whom? The only person that understood it that way was Vattel.”

Wrong the writers of the constitution clearly understood the meaning of the phrase Natural Born.

“You know that is the truth because you go on to say: “Third; there was no ambiguity then (during the writing of the constitution).””

That was a comma not a period, include the entire sentence.

and the interjected ambiguity now is an attempt to hide treason and the fact that we have no current president.

Ambiguity.. doubtfulness or uncertainty in meaning.

There was no ambiguity then during the writing and adoption of the constitution. There is no ambiguity now as to the meaning. The attempted interjection of ambiguity now is an attempt to hide treason and Obama being ineligible for the office.


236 posted on 05/23/2012 10:27:36 AM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Maybe the horse will learn to sing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | 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