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

To: Windflier

Interesting theory - as I read what is below - you are basically say since the father isn’t/wasn’t a citizen, and since citizenship is conferred by the father, then he can’t be a citzen.

But then we have the Minor case - where they clearly divide citizenship into two seperate buckets - native born and naturalized by law. That is then followed by Wong Kim - while the site you listed below says that isn’t settled law - it is still a precedent in defines native born as being born on american soil. On top of all that, you have three individuals : Chester Arthur, John Calhoun and Charles Curtis who all held the office of President and/or vice president with no better citizenship claim than the current occupant holds - as well as numerous individuals (including John McCain and the modern conservative wellspring - Barry Goldwater) who ran and fell short.

From the site: The claim that english common law is not american law also can’t fly - our courts have long used english common law as precedent when no american law supersedes it.

As to consulting the founders and the gentlemen around the time the 14th ammendment was passed, I’ll give you Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, William Seward, John Adams, James Madison and Lincoln’s attorney general all arguing contrary to your quotes...

I’ll grant you this - i’d like to see, personally, the court battle contesting the Wong Kim decision, and the subsequent legislation that would supersede the Articles that currently define who is and is not a native born citizen. I think it’d be fun and informative. I’ll also grant that an argument can be made for a more restrictive interpretation for citizenship - this is precisely what you are arguing.

That being said, I still don’t think there is anything to the birth certificate controversy that started this whole discussion. Have a good night.


401 posted on 07/28/2009 10:32:22 PM PDT by rudman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies ]


To: rudman
I still don’t think there is anything to the birth certificate controversy that started this whole discussion.

If that's the case, why are you busily debunking this issue on so many bc threads?

Perhaps this is just an analytical exercise on your part, or maybe you're trying to perform some sort of community service for us poor misguided Freepers.

I've looked at your posts on this subject, and most are long and very involved. That's a lot of effort for someone who doesn't "think there is anything to the birth certificate controversy."

405 posted on 07/28/2009 10:49:29 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | 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