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

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

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.

48 posted on 07/28/2009 7:28:28 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | 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