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

To: Rides3

The full quote, in a paragraph:

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Most people reading that, and ALL judges reading that, understand that there wasn’t a subject change in the last sentence from an NBC citizen to a mythical “born in the US of non-citizen parents” citizen. Remember, “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.”

But if you cannot read a paragraph in Minor without twisting it, I cannot help you. You don’t need legal advice, but a class in reading.


162 posted on 08/30/2013 7:10:25 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers
Most people reading that, and ALL judges reading that, understand that there wasn’t a subject change in the last sentence from an NBC citizen to a mythical “born in the US of non-citizen parents” citizen.

Why not? The difference is expressed PLAIN AS DAY:

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

The first "class" is referred to as natural-born citizens. The latter "class" is referred to as just citizens.

Poor reading comprehension skills do not negate Constitutional requirements for presidential eligibility.

163 posted on 08/30/2013 7:28:51 AM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | 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