Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

To: sten; 2ndDivisionVet; cynwoody
Shanks v. Dupont - 28 U.S. 242 (1830)

With regards to this ruling, I have scanned through the ruling paying particular attention to all instances of the word 'Natural' and reading in context the points being made.

I can find NOTHING that would establish unambiguously from a point of law, that it requires 2 US Citizen parents at birth to make a child 'Natural Born'.

Since you provided this as proof, it lays to you to prove it from this document.

Please support your contention, and disprove mine, by providing the relevant passages from this ruling that establishes unambiguously that it requires 2 US citizen parents at birth to establish the 'Natural Born' status of a child.

If you cannot, it just further establishes your whole argument as 'Smoke and Mirrors'.
35 posted on 06/02/2014 11:44:51 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: sten; SoConPubbie; cynwoody

Oh, and another thing, not to be insulting to anyone here ... but Ted Cruz has forgotten more about constitutional law than all of us combined and if we lived three long lives in the Harvard Law Library, he’d still know more than us. If he thinks he’s eligible, I think he’s eligible.


38 posted on 06/02/2014 1:45:57 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2Million USD for Cruz and/or Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article


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