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

To: Brilliant
"I think you’re citing the wrong case. At least according to Wikipedia:"

Read the case. It' s there.

83 posted on 05/06/2012 6:45:18 PM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]


To: Uncle Sham

You mean this:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

If so, that does not nearly resolve the issue. In fact, it explicitly refrains from considering the issue.


86 posted on 05/06/2012 6:53:42 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | 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