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

To: 4Zoltan
I've shown you the decision and what it said....verbatim.

Yet you STILL have no comment on the fact it states;

1)Children of parents who are citizens are natural born

2)There are doubts about the citizenship of children when the parents citizenship is unreferenced or foreign, but there are NO DOUBTS about what constitutes 'natural born'.

and

3)The judges felt it UNECESSARY to distinguish between the desperate TYPES of 'citizen' in their decision....

Why? Because the question never WAS if he was natural born, but whether he was a citizen of the United States

-----

[The 14th Amendment makes citizens of everyone born in the US except children of foreign ambassadors, of invading armies and of members of Indians tribes.]

Well....that's VERY odd!

One of the guys who helped write it didn't seem to think so.

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

center column halfway down
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20

1,503 posted on 03/14/2013 7:06:12 PM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1502 | View Replies ]


To: MamaTexan

“I’ve shown you the decision and what it said....verbatim.
Yet you STILL have no comment on the fact it states;

1)Children of parents who are citizens are natural born

2)There are doubts about the citizenship of children when the parents citizenship is unreferenced or foreign, but there are NO DOUBTS about what constitutes ‘natural born’.

and

3)The judges felt it UNECESSARY to distinguish between the desperate TYPES of ‘citizen’ in their decision....

Why? Because the question never WAS if he was natural born, but whether he was a citizen of the United States.”

Are you talking about Minor or Wong?

The first part of your comment:
1), 2), and 3) are the Minor decision

and

“Because the question never WAS if he was natural born, but whether he was a citizen of the United States.””

This is from the Wong decision.


1,504 posted on 03/14/2013 7:38:39 PM PDT by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1503 | 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