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

To: Uncle Sham

.
Because citizen is natural born

There was no reason to amend the constitution.


104 posted on 01/08/2016 9:35:08 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]


To: editor-surveyor
"Because citizen is natural born. There was no reason to amend the constitution."

If this is so, please explain the repeated references to "natural born citizenship" made by folks who should know what they were talking about such as John Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment, as well as those who argued over the natural born citizenship of Chester Arthur, as well as the Authors of Senate Resolution 511 which conferred natural born citizenship on John McCain.

If the term was eliminated as you imply back in 1795, how then does it still survive discussion? As far as I can see, it must still be in use and have some sort of legal attachment. The fact that it still exist in the Constitution should count for something.

Your claim that the change was made in order to eliminate confusion makes sense only if they had changed the description in the eligibility requirements as well. Do you have a source to back your claim? If so, can you please provide it.

131 posted on 01/09/2016 6:10:09 AM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]

To: editor-surveyor
citizen is natural born

ChiCom anchor babies.

157 posted on 01/09/2016 12:34:36 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans Freed the Slaves Month")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | 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