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

To: faucetman
You have absolutely no concept of the law, at all.

The 14th Amendment caused the “Anchor Baby” problem. However, since that Amendment contains the “-— subject to the jurisdiction thereof -—” clause, Congress can easily, through simple legislation, fix the Anchor Baby issue.

Also, since even the “Case Law” you Birthers post says, clearly, from the COURTS YOU CITE, that the Constitution does not define the term, and since said Case Law CLEARLY refers to Common Law -—

Legislation trumps Common Law!

NO COURT HAS EVER RULED THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND CITIZEN AT BIRTH!

The Constitution expressly allows for Congress to determine the Jurisdiction of the Courts, and the Constitution also allows for Congress to define, interpret, enforce and enact the Constitution.

You are CREATING a “Constitutional” issue where no such issue exists.

214 posted on 02/01/2012 10:28:30 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies ]


To: Kansas58

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/


216 posted on 02/01/2012 10:33:24 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies ]

To: Kansas58

“NO COURT HAS EVER RULED THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND CITIZEN AT BIRTH!”

Woah, are YOU late to the party!

Minor V. Happersett, 1874 DID make precisely that ruling. It defined a Natural Born Citizen, and differentiated it from someone who is a 14th Amendment Citizen. GO READ IT. It isn’t even that long for a SCOTUS case!


223 posted on 02/01/2012 10:40:12 PM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies ]

To: Kansas58

“NO COURT HAS EVER RULED THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND CITIZEN AT BIRTH!”

With my limited knowledge of the English language and my sophomoric attempts at Logic, I come to the conclusion that Minor v. Happersett discussed the subject of native or natural-born citizenship, leaving the interpretation open for future courts to decide on a case by case basis.


224 posted on 02/01/2012 10:40:43 PM PST by map
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies ]

To: Kansas58
Legislation trumps Common Law!

Except in the case of defining the terms of the Constitution. Otherwise the Legislature could change the meaning of the Constitution itself. Only the amendment process can do that.

How would you like it if your landlord redefined the terms of your lease, without you being able to agree to them or not agree to them? That's the same as the legislature redefining the terms of the Constitution, without going through the arduous amendment process.

237 posted on 02/01/2012 11:08:13 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies ]

To: Kansas58

And every person who is now dead, once drank water and breathed air.


242 posted on 02/01/2012 11:19:00 PM PST by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies ]

To: Kansas58
Photobucket
261 posted on 02/02/2012 12:28:31 AM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | 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