Skip to comments.The Pernicious "Natural Born" Clause of the Constitution: (John Dean questions it)
Posted on 12/02/2008 10:12:22 AM PST by OL Hickory
2 cases are listed in the article..
Can anyone summarize for me?
Then I realized he's just being a good little toad, as usual, and providing an assist to the farcical Obama administration.
In fact, there are conflicting holdings that only further compound the problem of understanding this clause. United States v. Wong Kim Ark(1898) indicates that foreign born children of Americans are not natural born. But in contrast, Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927) holds that "at common law the children of our citizen born abroad were always natural born citizen from the standpoint of this government."
U.S. Supreme Court
Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)
Weedin v. Chin Bow
Argued March 16, 1927
Decided June 6, 1927
274 U.S. 657
1. Under Rev.Stats. § 1993, which provides:
“All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof are declared to be citizens of the United States, but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States,”
John Dean wasn’t (and STILL isn’t!) worthy enough to SPEAK about the LAW!!!
10 minutes after posting this article
the link to the following case(United States v. Wong Kim ) as stated in the article was down. I just go an email from someone (who was just reading it) that you now have to sign in to view it.
I will go and check this out...if its true..... strange days are here my friend
Go here - - Cases law is on this site:
Cursor down to 11/29/08
This article is dated October 8, 2008.
The Obama natural born citizenship scandal is entering into a new phase and quickly escalating.
John Dean, here, publishes an article involving the very controversy surrounding Obama, but.....ONLY MENTIONS THE ISSUE AS RELATED TO MCCAIN, ROMNEY, AND OTHERS THAT WERE AFFECTED BY THIS ISSUE.
No mention of Obama in this article, on October 8? Why the hell not??
Never mind - article is dated Oct 8, 2004
wow..i started to re-read the article thinking i missed something...thanks for the correction
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.