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

To: BuckeyeTexan
If we believe that the 10th Amendment leaves all extra-constituional matters to the States or the People, then don’t our elected representatives have the power to define terms that are not explicitly defined within the Constitution?

Sounds like a variation on the Lincoln Douglas debate. I'll take Mr. Lincoln's position if you don't mind. :)

The founders were about natural law and natural rights. The point being, that no government had a right to infringe upon those. Among those rights were "Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Religion, the right to self defense, the right to be free in ones person and effects...

What that means is there are those rights which are natural, and which are regarded as beyond the ability of the "state" to tamper with.

Natural born citizenship fits neatly into this category. If a person is born inside a nation's boundaries to two citizens of that nation, who can claim he is not a citizen?

869 posted on 10/31/2013 12:39:23 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 827 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp
Natural born citizenship fits neatly into this category. If a person is born inside a nation's boundaries to two citizens of that nation, who can claim he is not a citizen?

So, who's to say that a person born to one citizen is not a Natural Born Citizen?
872 posted on 10/31/2013 12:44:08 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 869 | 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