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

To: DustyMoment

Good grief Dusty. Why don’t you just provide a link next time!!


152 posted on 07/21/2013 9:28:27 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies ]


To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

Sorry about the formatting. It wasn’t that way in the preview, I don’t know what happened.

I’ll re-format it and re-send via private reply.


179 posted on 07/21/2013 10:07:07 PM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for the American politburo!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
Here is the most cogent portion of the mass of text:

"In Gray’s majority opinion for Wong Kim Ark, Gray makes two references to natural born citizen which directly conflict with his British common law approach. The first is a reference to Justice Waite’s opinion from Minor vs. Happersett[6], in which Waite refers to a Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen as birth to two citizen parents on country’s soil[10].

In the second, Justice Gray quotes from a pamphlet entitled “Alienigenae of the United States”, by Horace Binney, which used the term "natural born" in connection with a child of a citizen, but not in connection with a child of an alien parent. :The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. (Binney’s statement, as cited by Gray U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)[11])

While Binney references both children as citizens, only the child born of a citizen is referenced as "natural born". Justice Gray’s articulation of British Common Law in Wong Kim Ark regarding U.S. citizenship should be considered nothing short of an abomination, because it is truly runs contrary to the very origins and hard-won principles of this country.

While Gray’s argument in Wong Kim Ark has had deleterious effect on citizenship, the case did not affect natural born citizen because Gray never pronounced that a natural born citizen was equivalent to a natural born Subject, despite obviously desiring to do so, and Gray never at all undermined 6 the definition provided by Justice Waite from Minor vs. Happersett. While Wong Kim Ark was pronounced a citizen of the United States, Ark was never declared to be a natural born citizen of the United States.

190 posted on 07/21/2013 10:37:43 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | 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