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

To: William Tell 2
You left out this part:

From US v. Wong Kim Ark

'Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship) reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance.' '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 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.'

117 posted on 02/02/2010 2:29:20 PM PST by Velveeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies ]


To: Velveeta

Helllooo the Supreme Court justice who wrote the opinion said that natural born citizen is not defined in the Constitution.

What more do you need to know?


120 posted on 02/02/2010 2:33:33 PM PST by William Tell 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]

To: Velveeta
"For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

Do you think it makes sense to pretend that a case has settled an issue it explicitly declines to settle? Just sayin...
123 posted on 02/02/2010 2:39:01 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | 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