Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Thomas Breaks Tradition: Forces Supreme Court to Look at Obama Citizenship Case
THE AFRO-AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS ^ | 12/3/08 | James Wright, AFRO Staff Reporter

Posted on 12/03/2008 11:43:31 PM PST by BP2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 901-922 next last
To: bvw

“...The revolution will be live.”

It *will* be on the internet though! :)


151 posted on 12/04/2008 5:40:42 AM PST by Newtiebacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: BP2
Pick your poison.

Really? Listen, you might as well pray for aliens to come to Earth and kidnap Obama so he can't become President, because that's about as likely as the Supreme Court ruling that he isn't eligible.

Not going to happen. But it will be interesting to watch the gnashing of teeth tomorrow morning when the Court denies cert.

152 posted on 12/04/2008 5:41:48 AM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: BP2
“BOTH PARENTS MUST BE U.S. CITIZENS AND THE CHILD MUST BE BORN ON U.S. SOIL”

Factually incorrect. A natural born citizen is anyone born within the United States. How do I know? Because I'm a natural born citizen and when I was born neither of my parents were citizens. I've done all the legal footwork on this. It's a fact.

This entire “Obama is not a natural born citizen” episode is very silly. Sure he could have stopped it early on but I think he's enjoying the sight of a bunch of people make fools of themselves.

153 posted on 12/04/2008 5:44:24 AM PST by ZekeNY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris
What is the definition of natural born? There are three ways to become a US citizen, birth thru blood, jus sanguinis; birth on US soil, jus solis; and naturalization. The first two are, IMO, natural born. If Obama was born in the US, he is a natural born US citizen. If he was born in Kenya, then he has a problem.
154 posted on 12/04/2008 5:45:55 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BP2; LucyT; Polarik; Beckwith; Fred Nerks; F15Eagle; george76
The AFRO shuchk and jive. Not being able to avoid this story, they do not reveal the facts.

Obama was born in Kenya , as his relatives have repeatedly said. Notice that AFRO says nothing about that.Why?

Our nation is divided now into free patriots and those who wish to abandon our constitution for "socially secure" bondage. Many of us go not quietly into that dark.

Many of us will fight it regardless of cost or consequence.

155 posted on 12/04/2008 5:45:58 AM PST by Candor7 (Fascism? All it takes is for good men to say nothing, ( member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2

PRESENT!


156 posted on 12/04/2008 5:47:12 AM PST by gunnyg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2
My parents or one parent were/was born in Virginia. My mother, pregnant with me, is visiting in Ireland where she goes into labor and I am born in a hostpital in Galway City. We return to the U.S. a few weeks later. Am I eligible to one day run for POTUS?

And the passage from our Constitution reads 'natural born or citizen of the U.S. ...'

157 posted on 12/04/2008 5:52:22 AM PST by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
NO case heard in the Supreme Court has EVER held that birthright citizenship is granted under the 14th Amendment to the children of people in the United States illegally. Or legally, for that matter, if not admitted as immigrants.

However, under current laws and practice, birthright citizenship exists and has existed ever since the 14th amendment was adopted. We have 400,000 anchor babies born each year to illegal alien parents. These anchor babies are treated just like every other US citizen and have the same rights and privileges, including a US passport upon demonstrating they were born here. The only exception is childred born to accredited diplomats to the US.

If a decision ever does come before SCOTUS, current law and practice for more than 100 years will have an impact on any ruling. IMO, if Obama was born in the US, he is a US citizen.

158 posted on 12/04/2008 5:52:28 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ZekeNY

I agree with you. Howver if Obama was born overseas, it is an entirely different matter.


159 posted on 12/04/2008 5:53:31 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Roccus

“Perhaps the fact that the state of Hawaii itself does not always recognize the short form COLB to be proof of birth location? Somewhere along this long, torturous epic it has been stated that in order to qualify for some sort of “homestead” status in HI, the short form COLB is insuffecient. If it (COLB) is not good enough for Hawaii, then how can it be for the NJ SoS or SCOTUS? “

Those are all good questions, but if Donofrio is not contending such concerns in his case, then how would they ever be brought up in court?


160 posted on 12/04/2008 5:53:38 AM PST by motoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: ZekeNY
“BOTH PARENTS MUST BE U.S. CITIZENS AND THE CHILD MUST BE BORN ON U.S. SOIL” Factually incorrect. A natural born citizen is anyone born within the United States. How do I know? Because I'm a natural born citizen and when I was born neither of my parents were citizens. I've done all the legal footwork on this. It's a fact. This entire “Obama is not a natural born citizen” episode is very silly. Sure he could have stopped it early on but I think he's enjoying the sight of a bunch of people make fools of themselves.

I beg to differ with you on this. You would be a US citizen, but you could not be a natural born citizen. George Washington was born on US soil, but he did not have natural born status. This is why they grandfathered themselves into the constitution - they were not natural born. You could not be natural born!
161 posted on 12/04/2008 5:57:32 AM PST by jcsjcm (Upholding the Constitution til my last breath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Newtiebacker
Not so sure. Anyway that lyric is Gil Scott Heron's. According to Wikipedia:
It first appeared on the 1970 album "Small Talk at 125th and Lenox", on which Scott-Heron recited the piece, accompanied only by congas and bongo drums.

A re-recorded version, this time with a full band, appeared on the 1971 album Pieces of a Man and as the b-side to the single "Home Is Where The Hatred Is".


162 posted on 12/04/2008 5:59:38 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Windflier
The Constitution provides for "checks and balances" in our country.

The Judicial Branch of government is the only branch willing and able to to resolve this matter.

Will they do it as justices of the highest court in the land in an impartial manner or will they play politics with it?

163 posted on 12/04/2008 6:00:21 AM PST by TYVets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jla
Here on the rules on children born abroad.

Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(a) INA provided:

1) a blood relationship between the applicant and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;

2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the applicant's birth;

3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the applicant reaches the age of 18 years, and

4) while the person is under the age of 18 years --

A) applicant is legitimated under the law of their residence or domicile,

B) father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or

C) the paternity of the applicant is established by adjudication court.

Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

FYI: Only fairly recently, Ireland passed a constitutional amendment ending birthright citizenship, the last country in Europe to have that practice.

164 posted on 12/04/2008 6:00:40 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: top 2 toe red
“This way, I would guess, the matter would be done with. Petitions of Donofrio’s types are hardly ever granted.”

God help us! Doesn't any judge or elected representative care about the constitutional requirements for the presidency?

165 posted on 12/04/2008 6:01:11 AM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Hope the Supremes understand the difference between citizen of the U.S. and Natural born citizen of the U.S.


166 posted on 12/04/2008 6:02:10 AM PST by classified
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
I’m pretty sure it’s solid tradition for all children born on U.S. soil...

How do you know that Obama was born on US soil?

167 posted on 12/04/2008 6:02:28 AM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm
George Washington was born on US soil,

No he wasn't; the United States didn't exist when he was born.

168 posted on 12/04/2008 6:03:42 AM PST by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99
If you’re born in the United States, you are a citizen of the US. Period.

Nonsense. Offspring of illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html

169 posted on 12/04/2008 6:04:06 AM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm
I beg to differ with you on this. You would be a US citizen, but you could not be a natural born citizen. George Washington was born on US soil, but he did not have natural born status. This is why they grandfathered themselves into the constitution - they were not natural born. You could not be natural born!

The reason they grandfathered themselves in was because there was no United States of America until the Constitution was adopted. When Washington was born, it is was in a British colony and they were considered subjects of the Crown, i.e., they were English citizens. Remember the Boston Tea Party? No taxation without representation.

170 posted on 12/04/2008 6:04:28 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Clarence Thomas - a Supreme Court Justice just doing his job. We shall see the media attack him soon.


171 posted on 12/04/2008 6:04:37 AM PST by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Windflier; All

“I find the above passages to be very illuminating. For one, it affirms to me that Leo Donofrio knows his Justices, so picked Justice Thomas to re-file his petition to, as the one Justice most likely to act on the overwhelmingly urgent implications of the issue.”

I agree. I think that Justice Thomas understands that this needs to be dealt with because it just isn’t going to go away. I don’t know if he has any opinion about it....he may think it has no merit...but he (I think) realizes it must be examined and not just pushed to the side.

I do believe that IF the SCOTUS was to examine the facts and documents (i.e. vault BC) they would be able to make an informed decision. I also think that IF the evidence shows that P.E. Obama was indeed born in Kenya or if other circumstances (being an Indonesian citizen) caused his loyalties (as constitutionally intended) to be questioned, I think a majority of the court will rule P.E. Obama to be unqualified. However, the evidence must be clear and compeling.

The hard part is getting them to actually take the time to obtain and examine evidence, which I think is all most of us want them to do.


172 posted on 12/04/2008 6:05:24 AM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek
The U.S. requires immigrants applying for naturalization to renounce their previous citizenship. Customarily, parents seeking naturalization also renounce, on behalf of their children, their children's previous citizenship.

Are you saying that Indonesia wouldn't require (or even allow) the same?

I'm saying that Indonesian law is irrelevant to the question of U.S. citizenship. From the U.S. State Department:

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

173 posted on 12/04/2008 6:08:08 AM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: ZekeNY
Factually incorrect. A natural born citizen is anyone born within the United States. How do I know? Because I'm a natural born citizen and when I was born neither of my parents were citizens. I've done all the legal footwork on this. It's a fact. This entire “Obama is not a natural born citizen” episode is very silly. Sure he could have stopped it early on but I think he's enjoying the sight of a bunch of people make fools of themselves.

HA, so when do you expect Bama to demonstrate a bunch of people made fools of themselves? He is hiding something because the lawyer fees alone are eating up a good chunk of that campaign war chest.

174 posted on 12/04/2008 6:08:37 AM PST by Just mythoughts (Isa.3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: CaraM

This provides a coherent and succinct argument for what natural born citizen means in the context of 14th amendment.
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html


175 posted on 12/04/2008 6:08:39 AM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: kabar
The reason they grandfathered themselves in was because there was no United States of America until the Constitution was adopted. When Washington was born, it is was in a British colony and they were considered subjects of the Crown, i.e., they were English citizens. Remember the Boston Tea Party? No taxation without representation.

Oops, my bad! Didn't take that one into consideration! That muddies it up a bit more.
176 posted on 12/04/2008 6:08:57 AM PST by jcsjcm (Upholding the Constitution til my last breath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
Nonsense. Offspring of illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Except for the children of accredited diplomats, anyone born on US soil is a US citizen, i.e., jus solis. That is the way our laws are written and practiced, which is why we have 400,000 anchor babies born each year who are entitled to such things as US passports and food stamps.

177 posted on 12/04/2008 6:08:59 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: BP2

“That is fact and will probably disqualify McCain too, who was born in Panama.

Wrong. Armed forces members married to US citizens on orders to be overseas are always considered as having US natural born children regardless of where the child is born.


178 posted on 12/04/2008 6:09:24 AM PST by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

Thanks for that clarification!

Regards,


179 posted on 12/04/2008 6:09:28 AM PST by alexander_busek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: snowsislander

CLANG>>>CLANG...NOW HEAR THIS....The Supremes will order the electors to verify the candidates qualifications before they vote yea or nae....this will stop the process and force the electors to do the job that created the positions they now hold....it is not a ceremonial job but one of substance and if they certify any candidate who later proves to be unqualified ,they are subject to the laws of treason . This crap has been going on far to long and it will stop on Friday 12/5/2008 Obama bin Biden will have to put up or step down. Tomorrow is his last chance...and I for one hope to color him gone so I don’t have to listen to all the dimoctrats who suffer from constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth along with the absence of ideas.


180 posted on 12/04/2008 6:13:36 AM PST by Buckarow (Where ever you go your reputation is two steps ahead of you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

Well said John Valentine!!!!


181 posted on 12/04/2008 6:13:37 AM PST by Sorry screen name in use
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Wrong. Armed forces members married to US citizens on orders to be overseas are always considered as having US natural born children regardless of where the child is born.

The same holds true for any child born to American citizen parents overseas. It is not confined to the Armed Forces.

182 posted on 12/04/2008 6:14:27 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: motoman
Those are all good questions, but if Donofrio is not contending such concerns in his case, then how would they ever be brought up in court?

...by SCOTUS requiring the NJ SoS to present whatever documentation (if any) it used to vet the candidates. The COLB that has been published seems to be no better than a note from his mother so I doubt SCOTUS will accept that as proof now or in the future. This is what I believe will lead us back to the long form BC.

BTW, I'm not a lawyer and I have never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express!

183 posted on 12/04/2008 6:17:28 AM PST by Roccus (Someday it'll all make sense.............maybe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Thank you very much, my prev post was an imagined scenario though as I already knew the child would certainly be eligible to run for POTUS.

Actually I post on these threads for the benefit of lurkers or other interested parties so they don't go away thinking all of FR are a rabid pack of lunatics, many who now tout a document, our Constitution, that they obviously never once read. Though now, because some hack lawyer wants to become famous the Constitution is the hot topic with the boys gathering outside WaWa or AllParts stores.

184 posted on 12/04/2008 6:18:24 AM PST by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Buckarow
I for one hope to color him gone

thats racist within pdf Pictures, Images and Photos

185 posted on 12/04/2008 6:20:04 AM PST by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: kabar
I understand it is the way they are being practiced. It sure is not the way they are written. The 14th is being misread for political reasons to conclude that black is white and up is down. If you buy that horsehillery then you must the the “collective right” interpretation of 2A since some liberal judge told you that is what it means.
186 posted on 12/04/2008 6:20:40 AM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“What is the definition of natural born? There are three ways to become a US citizen, birth thru blood, jus sanguinis; birth on US soil, jus solis; and naturalization. The first two are, IMO, natural born. If Obama was born in the US, he is a natural born US citizen. If he was born in Kenya, then he has a problem.

Birth on US soil=native-born. But this is NOT, as some here seem to think, equivalent to “natural born.” If the framers had wanted to simply tie eligibility to being native-born, they would have used that term. In reality, at the time of the Constitution, native-born children were NOT automatically citizens. http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

Whoever suggested natural born is restricted to a person who is a US citizen both jus sanguis and jus solis has a good idea. But if that were the intent of the framers it’s hard to understand why the first Immigration statute labelled those born abroad of 2 US citzens “natural born.” Admittedly, this was repealed 5 years later with identical language that still accorded such individuals automatic citizenship, but removed the term “natural born.” The point is IF the framers believed the jus sanguis + jus solis definition of natural born, this statute would not make sense.

However, this does not preclude viewing “natural born” as being restricted to individuals whose allegiance is undivided.


187 posted on 12/04/2008 6:26:19 AM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: TChris
"For the gazillionth time... The Constitution requires that the President be a Natural born citizen, not just a citizen."

So what's your point? He's disqualified because of a C Section? Stop wasting our time posting this crap. Never going to happen.

188 posted on 12/04/2008 6:29:04 AM PST by Mr_Peter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“The same holds true for any child born to American citizen parents overseas. “

Except there are conditions about those non-military parents and none on military parents on orders.


189 posted on 12/04/2008 6:34:37 AM PST by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

“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…”

If I am understanding this correctly, a Natural born citizen, is a person who was born on U.S. soil by parents who both were born on U.S. soil.

A U.S. citizen who was born on U.S. soil but one of his parents was born in another country could have become President only during the time that the Constitution was being adopted. After the Constitution was adopted, this person would not be qulified. And the reason he would not qualify is 1) He doesn’t fall under the definition of a Natural Born citizen and 2). He was not a U.S. citizen during the period when the Constitution was being adopted.

Is this correct?


190 posted on 12/04/2008 6:37:51 AM PST by classified
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jcsjcm
Actually I believe he could be a citizen at best (not natural born) or an illegal alien. There is no way they can put him as natural born having a father that was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. Here are 2 cases that may help:

Case 1: The Case Perkins v. ELG, 307 U.S> 325 (1939) this expands and refers on the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark's case definition of nationality.

Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, NY on October 2, 1907. Her parents who were natives of Sweden emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906 and her father was naturalized here in that year. Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325, 327 (1939)

Elg is a Citizen of the United States. Perkins v Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 328 (1939) Citizenship Matrix = 1 foreigner parent (Sweden) and 1 U.S. citizen parent (naturalized by US statute) and born in Brooklyn, NY.

Case 2: The facts were these: One Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939).

‘Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 330 (1939). Citizenship Matrix = 2 US Citizen parents (at least one naturalized by US statute) AND Born in St. Louis, MO (USA)

THANKS -- IT DOES HELP !!!

191 posted on 12/04/2008 6:38:49 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
The end of the constitutional republic?
192 posted on 12/04/2008 6:40:03 AM PST by EternalVigilance (AIPNEWS.com - America's Independent Party: "Peace through superior firepower!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

No, what I am saying is that actual practice will have a major impact on whatever ruling, if any, SCOTUS makes in this case. Our current laws imbue anyone born on our soil, except for the children born to accredited diplomats, full citizens of this country entitled to all of the rights and privileges that entails. You may consider the 14th amendment to be “misread,” but it is being misread by our own government.


193 posted on 12/04/2008 6:40:28 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: kabar

It has not been read that way by SCOTUS. They may address it now.


194 posted on 12/04/2008 6:47:16 AM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Bump to ya’


195 posted on 12/04/2008 6:50:19 AM PST by Helen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrC
Birth on US soil=native-born. But this is NOT, as some here seem to think, equivalent to “natural born.”

Aside from the current contretemps over whether Obama is eligible for the Presidency or not, this is a distinction without a difference. Can you cite any differences between the citizenship of a native born and natural born citizen under existing law and practice? How is birthright citizenship, jus solis, any different from jus sanguinis citizenship under law?

The point is IF the framers believed the jus sanguis + jus solis definition of natural born, this statute would not make sense.

It makes sense because we were a new nation whose residents were formerly citizens of other countries. For very real and practical reasons, we recognized two forms of natural born citizenship, jus sanguinis and jus solis. They are different for very obvious reasons.

196 posted on 12/04/2008 6:50:31 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

“pretty sure” and “solid tradtion” do not apply when interpreting the Constitution.


197 posted on 12/04/2008 6:51:29 AM PST by Helen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

See my post #164.


198 posted on 12/04/2008 6:52:03 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: DrC

Does anyone here remember how Barack Obama, Sr, acquired his British Citizenship? From Kenya, or via the UK direct on his travels?

It's a very relavant question in how the Justice may discuss this issue tomorrow...


199 posted on 12/04/2008 6:54:24 AM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine; kabar
NO case heard in the Supreme Court has EVER held that birthright citizenship is granted under the 14th Amendment to the children of people in the United States illegally. Or legally, for that matter, if not admitted as immigrants.

Good Point!!!!

200 posted on 12/04/2008 6:55:48 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 901-922 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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