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

To: RegulatorCountry
That is what they'll argue, and I see little to stop it.

What stops it are some quotes from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark more than 20 years later when it affirms that the Minor decision construed the 14th amendment as NOT defining natural-born citizens. The position of "some authorities" is comprehensively negated by this declaration in Wong Kim Ark. The second thing that negates it is the failure of the Wong Kim Ark court to declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen. In 2009, the Indiana Appeals Court had no problem recognizing that Ark was NOT found to be a natural-born citizen. Third, the thing that stops it is that the Wong Kim Ark decision gave the holding from Minor and said her citizenship was based on being born in the country to citizen parents. Why would they do that if they believed someone could be a natural-born citizen without having citizen parents?? What legal point is served by having citizen parents if NOT for how Article II eligibility is defined??

AND further, Minor and NOT Ark was recognized as THE precedent and Article II eligibility by the Supreme Court in 1913 in Luria v. United States.

But if you need more, simply put these two declarations side-by-side from Minor:

A: ... it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
B: Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

These two statements only talk about the doubt of being a citizen; it's not doubt about being a natural-born citizen, just being a citizen. For A, there is no doubt. For B, there is doubt. Only ONE of these two statements was characterized as natural-born. If there's doubt about B, why would it be characterized as natural-born?? And why say ANYTHING at all about being born to citizen parents if there's not a material distinction between these two classes?? What would be the point, especially if the 14th amendment could be used to resolve those doubts??

158 posted on 01/05/2013 11:08:24 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies ]


To: edge919
What stops it are ...

Really? I must've missed that. I was under the impression that he'd been reelected and is going to be sworn in for a second term later this month.

159 posted on 01/05/2013 11:14:48 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | 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