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

To: DiogenesLamp

There is no “redefinition.” The term natural born citizen was left undefined.
“The Constitution does not say in words who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.” SCOTUS- Minor v Happersett, 1874


80 posted on 04/12/2016 6:32:50 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: Nero Germanicus
There is no “redefinition.” The term natural born citizen was left undefined.

Natural law constants are defined by nature. It is a mortal arrogance to presume they can be re-defined by man.

“The Constitution does not say in words who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.” SCOTUS- Minor v Happersett, 1874

Glad you quoted that. I regard it as a specific admission that 14th amendment (which was what he meant when he said "the constitution" because it was under 14th amendment grounds that the case was brought) does not say who shall be a natural born citizen.

I agree. It does not, and cannot. Natural law constants cannot be modified. We can chose to use them, or not use them, but we cannot change their meaning.

83 posted on 04/12/2016 6:38:55 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | 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