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

To: SvenMagnussen
Where has SCOTUS ever issued a ruling on the definition of Natural-born citizenship? That’s right! It doesn’t exist.

And therein lies the problem.

NBC was last legally defined in 1790, but the law defining it was overturned in 1795.

The INS has some rulings distinguishing between NBC and native born, and that's about it.

Time to fix that omission, isn't it?

696 posted on 01/26/2012 12:05:37 PM PST by null and void (Day 1101 of America's ObamaVacation from reality [Heroes aren't made, Frank, they're cornered...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 678 | View Replies ]


To: null and void

The lower court of Wong Kim Ark addresses this issue.

So does SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark- affirmed without exception.

For those that can’t quite understand how Wong spells it out perhaps Justice Fuller’s comments will do it for you:

“The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule

was in force in all [p706] the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;

and

that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond he control of the legislative power.”

Now if you are confused about his use of the word “native-born” then read this:

“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

SCOTUS ruling meant that Ark could run for President.

As for the current day cases:

Indiana Court of Appeals in the Ankey case addresses Wong Kim Ark.


723 posted on 01/26/2012 12:21:21 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | 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