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

To: JediJones

The phrase “natural born” is not defined by the Constitution, and the SC has yet to rule on the matter.

Cruz is attempting to set a dangerous precedent. Have we become so short-sighted at this point that we are open to electing a president born on foreign soil to a father who was a foreign national?


145 posted on 02/03/2016 12:29:58 PM PST by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies ]


To: BlatherNaut
The phrase "natural born" is not defined by the Constitution

And there is the ruse, say something does not say something when in fact, the very language of the Constitution does define who is a natural born citizen.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

Before a naturalized person attains the privilege of becoming a US citizen they must renounce their allegiance (citizenship) in the foreign nation they immigrated from. Exclusive allegiance to the United States either at birth or naturalization. This is called ‘subject to the jurisdiction’, not just local jurisdiction, but political jurisdiction. Only those with exclusive political allegiance to the United States are citizens, others may be natives and others may be legal alien residents, however, ONLY the citizens are required to have complete & exclusive allegiance to the government of the United States.

151 posted on 02/03/2016 1:14:19 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | 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