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

To: Hugin
This is the case most widely cited by birthers, and it's bogus.

You mean this part?

“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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

18 posted on 09/05/2015 2:59:21 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (I stand with Kim Davis! I will not comply!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Las Vegas Ron
Yep that's the one, and again you left out the part immediately following...

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. 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.

In other words, since there was no doubt she fit the first classification, there was no need to decide whether the second was also correct. Which means they didn't rule on what an NBC is, so it's not a precedent in any way.

29 posted on 09/05/2015 3:17:23 PM PDT by Hugin ("First thing--get yourself a firearm!" Sheriff Ed Galt, Last Man Standing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | 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