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

To: Jeff Winston

“Heck, I think even you know that all the birth on us soil PLUS two citizen parent stuff is just complete BS.”

Why is it BS?


928 posted on 03/10/2013 8:00:16 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 912 | View Replies ]


To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

>> “Why is it BS?” <<

.
Because Obama’s boy Jeffie says so.


931 posted on 03/10/2013 8:02:00 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 928 | View Replies ]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

“Why is it BS?”

Because it has NEVER been the standard used. There is no court case upholding that idea, and there are multiple cases rejecting it. Because a case in 1898 gave a very long-winded review of the legal history, and utterly rejected the idea that 2 citizen parents meant squat all in US law.


932 posted on 03/10/2013 8:02:54 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 928 | View Replies ]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
Why is it BS?

I will confess that most of this thread has been dedicated to just kicking the crap out of a bunch of bogus birther claims that have been made.

For example, see the earlier complete destruction of 5 claims in a row made by DiogenesLamp (post 695).

5 in a row? That should be enough to convince honest observers that the birthers are likely full of BS.

The facts regarding US v Wong Kim Ark have been presented. The discussion in that case was the rationale for the decision, and it is binding precedent. Earlier, I explained why. So it's been made perfectly clear that from 1898, the rule has always been other than the birthers claim. And it's also clear that the Court said that had ALWAYS been the rule, from the earliest times in America and even before, in England.

I have also explained, in the graphic, how natural law fits in with the phrase "natural born citizen." I'm surprised no one has commented on that. I will reproduce the graphic before I'm done here very shortly, so you can look at it.

But one of the things we haven't gotten around to showing is how well founded the decision in that case really is - and YES, the Court absolutely DID find Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen. And I explained that above.

I'm working on a final post that should actually give you some idea of the early authority behind the traditional interpretation of "natural born citizen." That will show what people in early America actually thought, which completely destroys the two citizen parent claim.

And no, I will NOT be leaving out any quotes at all that say two citizen parents are required. They simply don't exist.

995 posted on 03/10/2013 9:12:52 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 928 | 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