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

To: Ray76

I’m relating what the court rulings have consistently been since 1868.

For example: Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.

“This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

When the 14th Amendment says “All persons...” that includes Presidents and Vice Presidents.


154 posted on 05/21/2013 3:19:39 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]


To: Nero Germanicus

The 14th Amendment does not mention Article II.

You are mistaken to believe that the 14th Amendment “further defined” Article II when it never mentioned it, nor “natural born citizen”.


160 posted on 05/21/2013 3:35:55 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies ]

To: Nero Germanicus
When the 14th Amendment says “All persons...” that includes Presidents and Vice Presidents.

But it is an attempt to promote a FALSE understanding to claim that the 14th amendment was intended to address "Presidents and Vice Presidents."

The 14th amendment was quite explicitly intended to grant former slaves a path to citizenship, and it deliberately omitted usage of the words "natural born" to describe such citizens it created. In addition, we have the words of Justice Waite not but seven years later proclaiming the 14th does NOT address that point.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.

Are you suggesting the man is SO STUPID as to have failed to notice the 14th amendment? The Very Amendment by which Minor's argument was based?

I regard Justice Waite's comment to be the most authoritative voice explicitly declaring that "natural citizenship" is not addressed by the 14th amendment.

The 14th Amendment was an act of Mass Naturalization, targeted at Former slaves. Anyone who is a citizen by operation of the 14th, is NOT a "natural citizen." Their Children are, but they themselves are not. They are "naturalized" citizens.

219 posted on 05/22/2013 6:45:12 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | 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