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

To: SoConPubbie
Prove your point with actual references to US Law/Supreme Court rulings

I already did with Minor vs Happersett and you can't deal with it.

125 posted on 09/08/2013 7:05:16 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]


To: Uncle Chip; ken5050; stephenjohnbanker; LUV W; Patty; itssme; BuckeyeTexan; Jane Long; ...
I already did with Minor vs Happersett and you can't deal with it.

So, Uncle Chip, you forced me to read the ruling, and lo and behold, much NOT to my surprise, you've left out the part of the paragraph that you lifted from the ruling that leaves doubt, as to your definitions, and proves my point. Now, please read carefully and see if you can pick out the sentence in the paragraph that puts your definition on shaky ground:

"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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."
So in fact, they were not resolving the question of the full spectrum of the CLASSES of citizen who were considered "Natural Born", just that there could be no doubt that citizens born of 2 US citizen parents, at the time of birth, there could be no doubt they were "Natural Born".

So that ruling only established that Natural Born, without hesitation, applies to certain class of citizens(those with 2 US Citizens at birth), but also, in fact, does nothing to prove your point that it is the ONLY class of citizens that can be considered "Natural Born"

How about YOU deal with that.
128 posted on 09/08/2013 8:06:56 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | 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