Posted on 12/21/2008 4:45:49 AM PST by Army MP Retired
“Native born” and “Natural born” are the same in the Law of Nations, the reference used for the Constitution.
bttt
A beg to differ. Not according to two Supreme Court decisions, 1939 Perkins v. ELG and 1898, Wong Kim Ark v. U.S. which makes it clear who is and who is not a natural born citizen.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2151845/posts?page=226#226
You can’t differ. Regardless of those court rulings, I posted the Law of Nations. Scroll up and read.
A = I
I’ll differ all I want. The book was written in 1852. It has no bearing here. The Federalist Papers and the thoughts behind the U.S. Constitution is where we get the original intent. Not all laws or foreign definitions were taken as U.S. Constitutional law.
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason
>>>Not all laws or foreign definitions were taken as U.S. Constitutional law.
The Law of Nations was used to base the Constitution.
While I hear both your points, I think we all agree:
“Show us the BC”
BO’s hiding something and none of us will know what
until a real document is produced.
Simple.
And for the record, from everything I have read, it is my interpretation that there is no such thing as an anchor baby. Reading the Federalist papers, with regard to the 14th Amendment, I think it is pretty clear, that “Under the Jurisdiction of” means, the country to which you have your allegiance, not your physical presence.
They did NOT want to follow the same Natural Law that Great Britian had to make subjects of people against their will. The British used Natural Law to strengthen their empire, we were not about being an empire.
I am normally loathe to respond to posts more than a day old, but yours is emblematic of the sheer ignorance that has been on parade here on FR almost daily in connection this whole "certifigate" non-matter.
To begin with, it is not as if the "natural born citizen" issue has been arising with such regularity so as to compel the Supreme Court to tackle the issue. The Court, like all courts, will always avoid deciding issues on constitutional grounds if it can. And these "birth certificate" cases, which have all been brought by either kooks or highly marginalized ideologues (or both), are quite easily disposed of under the Court's well-established standing precedent before one even begins to gain sight of the so-called merits of the case. Hence, they will to a one all be flushed. Anyone who says otherwise is either stupid, a fool, or ignorant.
Second, what you refer to as an "anchor baby" is someone who is clearly eligible to be President. A person born in the United States is a U.S. citizen, regardless of the citizenship status of their parents. The exception would be the children of diplomats because diplomats are not "subject to the jurisidiction" of the United States -- which is what the 14th Amendment is referring to.
Finally, the fact that you refer to "[r]eading the Federalist papers, with regard to the 14th Amendment," shows that your post has no basis in reality whatsoever. The Federalist Papers were written 80 years before the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed and ratified.
FR used to be like going to a pleasant bar and having a nice drink with a bunch of amiable folks. Sure, there is the occasional drunken lout, but that mattered little, because you could have a good time and chat in depth with friends. With this whole birth certificate lunacy, however, it's been like going to a bench in some dreary pocket park downtown and sharing a bottle of Night Train in a paper bag with a bunch of crazed winos.
Oh, I did read your profile, you are a lawyer, should I back down now because you are smarter than me?
The Supreme Court makes mistakes all the time. The most recent being the Heller case.
Sorry I tend to agree with what is written on this blog, I misspoke about the Federalist Papers.
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
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.