Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Technical Editor
“Natural born” appears only in the Constitution, so you won’t find it in any law.

Oh, really? Here's three SCOTUS cases for ya.

Natural Born status is mentioned in case law: Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's (1898) importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of "natural born citizen." In U. S. v Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed "natural born citizen," and in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett (above).

Perkins v. Elg's (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a "natural born citizen" of the U.S. is; what a "citizen" of the U.S. is; and what a "native born citizen" of the U. S.

Go to the link I gave you. The stuff there was mostly produced from 3 attorneys who are practicing in the federal courts system. You got some homework to do.

Cheers . . .
368 posted on 07/01/2009 2:29:37 PM PDT by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies ]


To: Beckwith

Obviously, I meant a law as a statute.

From Wong:

“The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’”

And also from Wong: “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

Minor says only that “doubts” exist with regard to only one parent being a citizen: “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.”

So you are mistaken.

However, only a case dealing specifically with the issue can settle it for you and some others.


375 posted on 07/01/2009 3:04:59 PM PDT by Technical Editor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson