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

To: Mr Rogers
The Supreme Court did not say English common law controls American law, but that it provided the Founders with a common vocabulary as they wrote legal phrases into the Constitution.

Yet nowhere in the ruling where you play connect-the-dots does it say that natural born citizen and natural born subject are the same nor interchangeable.

Also, the Supreme Court REJECTED the idea that English COMMON LAW supported someone being born overseas as being a NBS, or even a subject. See Section 4 in WKA.

You need to support this with a citation. What I see says "all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or shall be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively . . . . shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever." This, as well as the British Nationality Act of 1948 makes Obama a natural born subject. The 14th amendment MIGHT make Obama a citizen of the United States and a dual citizen, but nothing in WKA suggests that it would make Obama a natural born citizen. Nothing.

462 posted on 10/15/2010 9:36:27 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies ]


To: edge919

Correct, and if one really wishes to push the envelope here, it should be noted that under common law, children born of parents of mixed races the offspring follows the condition of the father.

Under common law that Mr. Rogers says is the common law of this country, and nothing has changed since Wong Kim Ark in the year 1898, Obama is not a citizen because he was born to a black father and a white mother. Under common law his citizenship is that of the father.

Since the 14th amendment merely reaffirmed the common law under Wong Kim Ark, Obama can not be a citizen of the United States.

Are we sure we want to continue treating Wong Kim Ark as controlling law here?


467 posted on 10/15/2010 10:01:45 AM PDT by NOVACPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies ]

To: edge919

I’ve provided you with the citation many times, but you ignore the first half of the decision. Since no court does, you end up not understanding why the courts do what they do.

Here it is again:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

Section 4 begins about 1/3 of the way thru the decision. But I know you won’t understand it, since you don’t understand that the courts says NBC is the American form of NBS, and that IS the first 1/3 of the decision!


490 posted on 10/15/2010 11:48:39 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | 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