Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: edge919; allmendream

The Supreme Court said the 14th Amendment restates the requirements that common law imposed on the term natural born subject:

“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words...the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683] “


35 posted on 10/06/2012 1:43:20 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers

This quote is irrelevant to presidential eligibility. The same decision already acknowledged that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The same decision limits the operation of the 14th amendment to the children of resident aliens who have permanent residence and domicil in the U.S. The same decision specifies Minor v. Happersett defined NBC as birth in the country to citizen parents.


44 posted on 10/06/2012 2:25:29 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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