To: DJ MacWoW
Bring a case under that reasoning, and it would most likely be tossed out of court.
Subsequent legislation has made retroactive qualifications for citizenship that are broader than the law of 1952. Under present law he would without a doubt be considered a US citizenship without need for naturalization ( the most likely reading of “natural born”).
Now, one could argue that the definition of “natural born” has to be governed by the law prevailing at the time. I doubt any court will agree, and prefer the law prevailing at the time it was constitutionally relevant, i.e., 2008.
33 posted on
07/28/2009 7:03:37 PM PDT by
buwaya
To: buwaya
Now, one could argue that the definition of natural born has to be governed by the law prevailing at the time. I doubt any court will agree, and prefer the law prevailing at the time it was constitutionally relevant, i.e., 2008. Sure. The Constitution is now toilet paper, right?
37 posted on
07/28/2009 7:09:48 PM PDT by
DJ MacWoW
(Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
To: buwaya
Subsequent legislation has made retroactive qualifications for citizenship that are broader than the law of 1952. Under present law he would without a doubt be considered a US citizenship without need for naturalization ( the most likely reading of natural born). No ex-post facto laws, buwaya. It's in the Constitution. No effect whatsoever upon the specific, Constitutional term "natural-born citizen," let alone the requirement for such in order to be eligible for the office of President.
To: buwaya
Subsequent legislation has made retroactive qualifications for citizenship that are broader than the law of 1952. Under present law he would without a doubt be considered a US citizenship without need for naturalization ( the most likely reading of natural born). Now, one could argue that the definition of natural born has to be governed by the law prevailing at the time. I doubt any court will agree, and prefer the law prevailing at the time it was constitutionally relevant, i.e., 2008. Interesting. I would think what held at the time would count, but some of these laws did act retroactively so that there was uniformity of application.
64 posted on
07/28/2009 8:02:43 PM PDT by
WOSG
(OPERATION RESTORE AMERICAN FREEDOM - NOVEMBER, 2010 - DO YOUR PART!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson