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

To: SoConPubbie

if your ‘close watch’ consisted of the progressive left cabal of propaganda sources, then i’d understand. otherwise, the information has been out there for a VERY long time.

ie:
“Supreme Court precedent: The courts have applied the partus sequitur patrem principle (citizenship by descent from one’s father) to determine who is, or who is not, a federal (U.S.) citizen at birth; but the meaning of natural born citizen appears to be a separate issue [21]. To this day, the Supreme Court, in its majority opinions, has consistently used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to persons born on U.S. soil, to parents who are both U.S. citizens. “

“To this day, whenever an Opinion of the Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens. “

http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm


94 posted on 12/31/2014 11:08:37 AM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]


To: sten
From that very same article you linked to:

But what about other categories of persons? What about children born overseas to American parents? And what about children born in the United States, of an alien parent? Today, such children are U.S. citizens. But are they natural born citizens? So far, Federal law, the Constitution and the courts have not settled these questions.

... the definition of what it means to be a natural-born citizen has never been decided in the courts and the Constitution doesn't explain exactly what it means by "natural born," according to Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor and citizenship-law expert. (National Journal, Is Canadian-Born Ted Cruz Eligible to Run for President?, May 1, 2013)

In 2004, Senator Don Nickles predicted that, if the meaning of natural born citizenship remains unresolved, it will someday become "a real issue":

The definition of this term ["natural born citizen"] is an issue that has been debated in legal circles for years and has never been ruled on by the courts. Clarification is needed before this becomes a real issue. (Nickles)
Even the article you used to buttress your position states the ambiguity of your position when it comes to constitutionality.

If you had something(Actual Supreme Court Ruling) besides your opinion or someone else's opinion, you would have posted it.

You don't, because it does not exist.

Just more smoke and mirrors of what you want it to be, but what it is not.
99 posted on 12/31/2014 8:55:26 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | 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