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

To: Dr. Eckleburg

The whole point is that there is nothing in the constitution that defines the term. Therefore, it will all be opinion, and they’re not going to make this decision based on one person’s opinion over another’s.

It will be made politically.


207 posted on 09/10/2009 4:18:12 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies ]


To: xzins; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; El Gato; wmfights; 1000 silverlings; Forest Keeper; HarleyD; ...
The whole point is that there is nothing in the constitution that defines the term.

There are hundreds of words in the Constitution that are not "defined in the Constitution" because their meaning is a given.

Read the following link...

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN DEFINED

"The Founders required the President to be a "Natural Born Citizen" to help ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had unquestionable and unwavering loyalty to the United States of America, first and foremost.

 The term natural born citizen was first codified in the legal reference book "Law of Nations" in 1758, of which was used by John Jay who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  John Jay considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time had the "natural born citizen" clause inserted into the U.S. Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention...

Any Supreme Court uncompromised by expediency and dirty politics would have to decide in favor of the two-parent definition of natural-born citizen.

216 posted on 09/10/2009 4:47:36 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | 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