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

To: edge919

What you don’t seem to notice is that neither of those cases said native borns aren’t natural borns. Because they weren’t about presidential eligibility, and weren’t compelled to exhaust all the different ways you could be naturally born a citizen.


106 posted on 04/19/2012 2:36:02 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]


To: Tublecane
What you don’t seem to notice is that neither of those cases said native borns aren’t natural borns.

What YOU don't seem to notice is that BOTH of those cases cited a definition that said BOTH native born and natural born required birth to citizen parents. The later case redefined native-born to include the children of resident aliens. It did NOT redefine natural born.

Because they weren’t about presidential eligibility, and weren’t compelled to exhaust all the different ways you could be naturally born a citizen.

The first case specifically cited the term natural-born citizen from the eligibility clause in Art. II of the Constitution and then defined it. In effect, they allowed that Virginia Minor, while not having a right to vote, would be qualified to run for president. Such was not the case for Wong Kim Ark ... and thus not for Barack H. Obama II. What YOU don

124 posted on 04/19/2012 10:27:05 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | 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