Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

To: sten
pesky facts, i know. but it’d be pretty tough to call yourself a conservative, let alone a patriot, if you were to dismiss the Constitution because it wasn’t politically convenient

The Minor v. Happersett does nothing to prove your point if you bring in all the language of the ruling that deals with being Natural Born, instead of just a narrow sliver that you try to use to prove your point:

Minor v. Happersett - 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their

Page 88 U. S. 168

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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.


Nothing in this ruling unambiguously puts to bed the idea that it requires 2 US Citizen parents at birth to be 'Natural Born' only that it can be said without a doubt that those who are born in those circumstances are 'Natural Born'.

Maybe you should do your own homework and read through the rulings in question that you use to try and prove your point.
30 posted on 06/02/2014 11:13:24 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: SoConPubbie; 2ndDivisionVet; cynwoody; sten

Ping to rebuttal to use of incomplete facts to buttress his argument.


31 posted on 06/02/2014 11:14:14 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | 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