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

To: Ray76

The quotes illustrate the fact that it never required both birth on US soil, plus two citizen parents, for a person to be a natural born citizen or eligible to be President.

And they further illustrate what I stated above, that the term never came from Vattel. It had nothing to do with Vattel. It clearly came from the common law.

And by the principles of the common law, virtually every person born in the country was a “natural born” citizen or subject. And the national legislature also had the ability to specify, through legislation, which other persons, born abroad to citizens, were to be considered natural born citizens as well.

This understanding is in harmony with virtually everything that has ever been said about Presidential eligibility throughout our entire history.

The claim that it takes both birth on US soil, plus two citizen parents, for a person to be a natural born citizen or eligible to be President, is nothing more than bullcrap, backed up by literally dozens of bullcrap arguments.


36 posted on 05/30/2013 10:34:42 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Winston

And the relevance to Ted Cruz is?????


38 posted on 05/30/2013 10:38:43 AM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Winston
The quotes illustrate the fact that it never required both birth on US soil, plus two citizen parents, for a person to be a natural born citizen or eligible to be President.

That is axiomatic from what is required to be a natural citizen.

And they further illustrate what I stated above, that the term never came from Vattel. It had nothing to do with Vattel. It clearly came from the common law.

Except that we didn't USE common law. 100,000 Children of British Loyalists, Several Million Slaves, and Several Million Indians are all examples of where your theory hits the brick wall of reality. Had these people been born in England, they would all have been English Subjects. (Well, the 100,000 Children of British Loyalists were anyway, despite being born here.) They were born in the United States, and they WERE NOT American citizens.

And by the principles of the common law, virtually every person born in the country was a “natural born” citizen or subject.

Nope. Originally only the children of Europeans who came here to naturalize themselves.

And the national legislature also had the ability to specify, through legislation, which other persons, born abroad to citizens, were to be considered natural born citizens as well.

"Considered" does not mean "are." Congress cannot re-write constitutional terms. They must submit an amendment to the states, of which 3/4ths are required.

This understanding is in harmony with virtually everything that has ever been said about Presidential eligibility throughout our entire history.

Only in the Hollow belfry echo-chamber of your mind. The Best Authorities, John Marshall and Bushrod Washington EXPLICITLY rebuke your theory.

58 posted on 05/30/2013 12:23:05 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | 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