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

To: gigster

Under the 14th Amendment, as interpreted to date by courts, you were a citizen at birth.

Some argue there is a distinction between citizen at birth and natural born citizen, but such a distinction has never been recognized by US courts or administrative agencies.

I’m not saying such a distinction couldn’t exist, just that its existence has never been recognized and it seems highly unlikely to me that any court would recognize such a distinction given the literally explosive implications.

In fact, in one of the Supreme Court decisions that is relevant, one of the dissenters complained that the majority decision would mean a child of two Chinese coolies born in this country would be eligible to be president.

Since the majority overruled him, they implicitly agreed that this child of two foreign nationals (of unpopular race at the time) was indeed a natural-born citizen.


186 posted on 08/09/2009 12:33:30 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan
Some argue there is a distinction between citizen at birth and natural born citizen, but such a distinction has never been recognized by US courts or administrative agencies.

Turns out not to be quite correct. The state department has said that the issue is not settled as a matter of law. So while it's not been recognized that there is a difference, it's also not been recognized that there is not.

205 posted on 08/09/2009 1:17:45 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan; El Gato

I never said that I wasn’t a “Citizen”.
I am not a ‘”Natural-born” Citizen, as my parents had a allegiance to the British Crown.


208 posted on 08/09/2009 1:23:07 AM PDT by gigster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan
Since the majority overruled him, they implicitly agreed that this child of two foreign nationals (of unpopular race at the time) was indeed a natural-born citizen.

Your interpretation, based on faulty logic. What they overruled was the idea that he could not be a citizen at all. The minority could have stated a lot of things, some of which the majority would agree with, some they would not. What they actually ruled is what counts. They ruled that he was a citizen under the 14th amendment, with no mention, in the ruling, of him being natural born, since that was not at issue.

209 posted on 08/09/2009 1:24:58 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies ]

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