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

To: Jeff Winston
but the point still remains that there was NO SUCH THING AS DIVIDED CITIZENSHIP in 1787.

I never said there was.

Then why on earth should we accept it for Presidential eligibility? It is an unnatural creation of congress, not a characteristic of natural law.

443 posted on 08/21/2013 7:06:57 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
Then why on earth should we accept it for Presidential eligibility? It is an unnatural creation of congress, not a characteristic of natural law.

The context of my comment was the "divided citizenship" of a husband having one citizenship, and a wife having a different citizenship. That is what you were talking about, and it's what I responded to.

I wasn't referring to dual citizenship of a single person, which was recognized by the US Supreme Court as far back as 1795, and which was held by Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison while serving as President.

Different concept.

And it is obviously a concept that frankly didn't bother the Founders and their generation that much, as long as the person holding it was loyal to the United States, because if they had, they would've raised a stink about it and forced Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison to renounce their French citizenship.

449 posted on 08/21/2013 10:19:25 AM PDT by Jeff Winston (Yeah, I think I could go with Cruz in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | 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