Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

To: Windflier

The quotes speak for themselves. In no case (except, as noted, the case of the discredited Ramsay) do they ever even ATTEMPT to say that both birth on US soil and citizen parents are required.

Some of them even say CATEGORICALLY AND ABSOLUTELY that citizen parents are NOT required for anyone born on US soil to be a natural born citizen.

You look at those and think I should make some further argument. Well, actually, I did. You must have missed it.

It’s very simple, because the history and even the theory of this is far simpler than birthers make it.

1. “Natural born subject” came from natural law. The principle, which originated in Middle Ages England, which was a Christian nation at the time, came from the writings of St. Paul. The principle was that anyone born within a realm was by natural and divine law a subject of that realm and responsible to obey the authority that God had put in charge of the realm he was born into.

That is the NATURAL LAW behind “natural born subject.” And by that NATURAL LAW rule, any child born even to aliens resident in the land was a natural born subject.

2. The exact same rule (the US Supreme Court in 1898 said exactly the same thing I’m saying now) applied first in England. Then in the American Colonies. Then, in each of the United States after Independence. Then, in the United States after the establishment of the Constitution. “Natural born subject” became “natural born citizen” when we dropped the allegiance to a king. That is the ONLY thing that changed.

This fact of history and law has been clearly confirmed by multiple courts including Lynch (1844, New York) and most notably the US Supreme Court in US V. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.

The rule was never changed. It applied then to natural born subjects. It has applied throughout American history to natural born citizens. It applies even now.

It’s just not that hard.

And what I am saying is backed up by pretty much every significant legal authority in HISTORY.


133 posted on 03/14/2013 12:05:53 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Winston; Windflier
and most notably the US Supreme Court in US V. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.

Still repeating the lie, I see.

-----

Windflier, I've already posted to Jeff the fact Wong Kim Ark was never determined to be a natural-born citizen

You can see his response for yourself.

-----

TOOT! TOOT!

Next stop, Rationalization Station!

LOL!

135 posted on 03/14/2013 12:31:51 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson