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

To: New Jersey Realist

New Jersey Realist, your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is wrong. I refer to Leo Donofrio who clear the confusion up a long time ago.

Moreover, the Constitution itself leads to the definition by the process of elimination. There is the qualification for President and Vice President; i.e., natural born citizen. Then there is the qualification for Senator and Representative; i.e., “seven years a Citizen.” That is not too hard to parse. What do you think. If the definition were the same, why have the modifier “natural born” in front of Citizen? Having a looser, broader definition of citizenship for the highest offices in the land would make no sense. Instead “natural born” points a more restrictive, more limited, definition of citizenship that identifies those Americans who have no divided loyalties by either being born on foreign soil, or having parents with citizenship in some country other than America. That also was the main point of the 14th Amendment: Allegiance; complete, pure, unsullied, unquestionable allegiance to just America.

The other hint is found by comparing two immigration acts: The ones of 1790 and 1795. The one from 1790 recognized that, for example, a child born on a ship overseas to American parents would be recognized as a natural born citizen. In 1795, they realized their mistake, and said that such a child was instead a Citizen, not natural born.

So, sorry New Jersey Realist, try again.


6 posted on 04/28/2012 8:54:02 AM PDT by bioqubit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: bioqubit

Donofrio represents an OPINION. This is proof of nothing. Why would you smugly tell me to “try again.” Explain why no single court in the land supports your side? How is it possible to PROVE your parents are natural born citizens themselves without their BC’s or their parents BC’s? There are two classes of citizens in this country: those born here and those proclaimed citizens by law or court, the former being natural born.


10 posted on 04/28/2012 9:15:59 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: bioqubit

“The other hint is found by comparing two immigration acts: The ones of 1790 and 1795. The one from 1790 recognized that, for example, a child born on a ship overseas to American parents would be recognized as a natural born citizen. In 1795, they realized their mistake, and said that such a child was instead a Citizen, not natural born.”

DING!, DING!, DING!, We have a winner!

“they realized their mistake,” EXACTLY!


15 posted on 04/28/2012 9:23:29 AM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | 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