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

Skip to comments.

4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
The Post & Email ^ | Oct. 18, 2009 | John Charlton

Posted on 01/10/2010 6:03:15 PM PST by STE=Q

Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.

Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: article2section1; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; citizen; colb; constitution; kenyanvillageidiot; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; ruling; scotus; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 next last
To: Genoa
This refutes the argument of those who maintain that Vattel doesn’t amount to anything. It is woven into SCOTUS precedent.

Please show us where exactly Vattel speaks of "logical answers."
Unless it is explicit quoted, it didn't happen.

51 posted on 01/10/2010 10:52:32 PM PST by Publius6961 (…he's not America, he's an employee who hasn't risen to minimal expectations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kittykat77
I am not aware of the "natural born citizen" requirement for any position, office or administrative reason, except for the office of POTUS that is clearly presented in the Constitution.

If the American people see this as no longer a necessary requirement, well, there's a process that must be followed to change the Constitutional requirement -- to do otherwise is to set a dreadful precedent.

52 posted on 01/10/2010 10:56:05 PM PST by glennaro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Sorry, but your inference as to what would be the most logical answer is not part of the record.

Sorry, my "inference" was... well, an inference.

Therefore, it doesn't have to be part of the record.

Pay special attention to definition b.

inference:

Logic.

a. the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.

: b. the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.

Am I in the Twilight Zone?

Are you?

I'm astonished at how many different individuals try the same childish attempt at "reasoning."

If that's the way you feel you should come up with some sort of cogent rebuttal that doesn't involve bloviating.

STE=Q

53 posted on 01/10/2010 11:23:18 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
you are totally misrepresenting the opinion and you do not cite what references the court used in its decision...

First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866

Be it enacted . . ., That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;

Then the court goes on to cite WKA as a reference in which we know references Minor v Happersett:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. -Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)

“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’” -Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

54 posted on 01/10/2010 11:25:57 PM PST by patlin (1st SCOTUS of USA: "Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: patlin; El Gato; All

It’s getting late where I am.

Time to hit the sack!

Whether you agree or disagree I hope everyone found the article edifying.

STE=Q


55 posted on 01/10/2010 11:46:01 PM PST by STE=Q ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government" ... Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

‘Seasonable’ — this certainly is a bad season, exactly the kind of thing Jay wished to avoid.


56 posted on 01/11/2010 5:44:22 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kittykat77

Is that your real interest? Suggest you study up hard then.


57 posted on 01/11/2010 5:46:56 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: True Republican Patriot

Compared to the implications of what this current admin. (and past admins) have for this country, it could be of lesser worry.

I still want to know the whole truth and nothing but.....


58 posted on 01/11/2010 5:58:26 AM PST by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q

There’s actually five. Charlton forgets perkins v Elg.

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm#FiveCases


59 posted on 01/11/2010 6:20:14 AM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA
Did the Founding Fathers exempt themselves

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


60 posted on 01/11/2010 6:22:21 AM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
Where are the Obots?

First time I've seen one of these threads that wasn't infested by the usual gang of deceivers.

61 posted on 01/11/2010 6:24:36 AM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Please show us where exactly Vattel speaks of "logical answers." Unless it is explicit quoted, it didn't happen.

It is "understood" by those with logical minds capable of determining the intent of the words of the author -- something that is foreign to the minds of liberals and Obots.

62 posted on 01/11/2010 6:29:43 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 51 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA

Yes, the actual requirement is for the President to be a natural born citizen of the United States or a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted.


63 posted on 01/11/2010 7:13:37 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith; The_Reader_David

10-4! Thank you both!


64 posted on 01/11/2010 7:18:16 AM PST by GOPsterinMA (Never bring a snowball to a gun fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: patlin

“§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country.”


From this passage, it is clear that Joseph Story was saying that a natural-born citizen is the opposite of a naturalized citizen; thus, a natural-born citizen is someone that is a citizen at birth, while a naturalized citizen becomes a citizen later in life.

Which means that if Obama was born in Kenya, then he isn’t a natural-born citizen because federal law at the time only gave U.S. citizenship at birth to a child born abroad with one U.S. citizen parent if such parent had lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years after the age of 14 (and Obama’s mother hadn’t yet turned 19 years of age when he was born). However, if Obama was born in Hawaii, then he’s a U.S. citizen at birth and thus a natural-born citizen.


65 posted on 01/11/2010 8:02:13 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

“... thus, a natural-born citizen is someone that is a citizen at birth, while a naturalized citizen becomes a citizen later in life.” By mistating your premise to include that which you wish to establish as singular truth, you have deceived readers and yourself. Naturalized is a process reached through statute, ie, some legal statute establishes citizenship. By statute is not a state achieved by meeting the primary definition of natural born. Even you can think up a case where someone born on American soil but not a natural born citizen at birth and not a citizen at birth can become a citizen by statute passed later in life yet reaching back to date of birth, state of parents’ citizenship, and location. [HINT: think children born to diplomats and years later Congress establishes a statute covering siad child born to a diplomat of a foreign country.]


66 posted on 01/11/2010 8:50:03 AM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

A child of foreign diplomats born in the U.S. is not a U.S. citizen because U.S. laws (and, less relevantly, the 14th Amendment) in existence well before 1961 and still in effect today specifically state that the children of foreign diplomats do not acquire U.S. citizenship merely by being born in the U.S. However, the laws of the U.S. in 1961 said that the child of a U.S. citizen and a foreigner is a U.S. citizen at birth if he was born in the U.S. Ergo, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was a U.S. citizen at birth; if he was born abroad, then he wasn’t (because his citizen mother hadn’t lived in the U.S. for 5 at least years past the age of 14 as the statute required in cases of foreign birth).

Your theory is that a person can be a U.S. citizen at birth and not be a natural-born citizen. I disagree with you, as did, apparently, Joseph Story. That doesn’t prove that you are wrong, but at the very least you should accept that that passage from Story’s Commentaries is a point in my favor.


67 posted on 01/11/2010 11:22:23 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

I’m not in some sort of contest with you; I just find natural born—based upon the writings from the eras of our Constitution being written and by whom it was written, their comments on the subject—to mean two American citizen parents and born on American soil or territory (as in an embassy or military base rented lands). Changing the Constitution by fiat fits leftist fascist design, but it is anti-American in the main.


68 posted on 01/11/2010 11:36:45 AM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: kittykat77
The only reason to check for Natural Born Citizenship is in the process of determining a President. It is a constitutional obligation.

McCain was tested for his “Natural Born Citizenship” by congress before he ran for President. He was qualified because both his parents were Americans at the time of his birth.

Obama was not, because he would not pass the test. It was a brilliant move by Dems to focus on McCain and then be generous to allow him to run. They had no issues running against a feeble old man. Getting Obamma past this requirement was their motive. (IE, “We gave you a gold plated pass for your Panamanian born senator, now leave us alone.”)

That opened the door for Obama to get in without being given a natural born citizen test.

Believe me, the fact that Obamma was not tested like McCain was not an accident. Harry Ried was running the show, and he slected Obama to run. We have never seen any original documents for Obama, and he was in fact born a British subject. As a matter of Fact, not opinion, we now have a "British born subject" running the American government.

69 posted on 01/11/2010 11:48:46 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: STE=Q
It would appear that A Natural Born Citizen -- born in country by citizen parents (Plural)-- would be the logical answer to the above question.

A pity that John Jay never said that though. Still how can we argue with Birther logic?

70 posted on 01/11/2010 11:54:25 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
This refutes the argument of those who maintain that Vattel doesn’t amount to anything. It is woven into SCOTUS precedent.

No, it's not. Three of those cases do not deal with the question of natural-born citizenship and the fourth doesn't say what the author thinks it says.

71 posted on 01/11/2010 11:56:33 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

You’re right, we’re not in a contest—I apologize for using language that implied that we were.

Regarding your expanded definition of U.S. soil, federal law does not grant birthright citizenship to persons born in U.S. military bases abroad or in U.S. embassies or consulates. If a Cuban woman gives birth in the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base to a baby whose father is also a non-citizen, then the baby would not be a U.S. citizen at birth under federal law, the same as if the baby had been born outside of the base. Same goes with an embassy—if a cleaning woman gives birth in the U.S. embassy in Moscow, the baby wouldn’t be a U.S. citizen. This is because while in conversation people use terms such as “U.S. soil” or “U.S. jurisdiction” to refer to embassies and military bases abroad, such places are legally part of the sovereign territory of the foreign nation surrounding them and the only “jurisdiction” that the U.S. has is what was given to us by treaty.

Of course, if what matters is whether or not a person is a U.S. citizen at birth, irrespective of where he was born, then it doesn’t matter whether the child of U.S. citizens was born in a hospital inside or outside of the U.S. military base, since he is a U.S. citizen at birth under federal law irrespective of where he was born.


72 posted on 01/11/2010 12:06:20 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Our “British born Subject”, Mr. Obama, our President of Kenyan descent and Indonsian citizenship concurs with your logic.

Rest assured, You are not alone in belittling Americans who know the law by calling them “birthers”.

The truth remains: He is the first to assume the presidency, after the founders, with numerous claims to citizenship rights to multiple countries. The NBC clause is there to stop this exact situation.

73 posted on 01/11/2010 12:07:55 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
Rest assured, You are not alone in belittling Americans who know the law by calling them “birthers”.

On the contrary, I'm belittling Birthers who don't know the law.

The truth remains: He is the first to assume the presidency, after the founders, with numerous claims to citizenship rights to multiple countries. The NBC clause is there to stop this exact situation.

Ah if you could only point to where the Constitution defines natural-born citizen in a way which supports your position.

74 posted on 01/11/2010 12:13:51 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Common sense defines it. He was born on United States soil (let’s assume) the son of a father who was at all times a UK/Kenyan citizen.


75 posted on 01/11/2010 12:30:04 PM PST by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
Common sense defines it. He was born on United States soil (let’s assume) the son of a father who was at all times a UK/Kenyan citizen.

Which, according to the 14th Amendment, made him a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth. Since the Constitution only identifies two forms of citizenship, and since Obama wasn't naturalized, then that narrows his status down to natural-born.

76 posted on 01/11/2010 12:41:49 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: GOPsterinMA

I read where they had to exempt themselves at the time and it was legislation because there was no way that anyone would have been eligible since the country was so young.


77 posted on 01/11/2010 12:51:43 PM PST by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

It strikes me as strange to insist in this case on an explicit definition in the Constitution itself, given the fact that the Constitution routinely uses a lot of other terms without defining them; and so, quite a few interpretations in many other cases (not just regarding natural-born citizenship) have been based on discerning the intent of the framers and determining their likely use of language as understood at the time. Why is that not allowed now?


78 posted on 01/11/2010 12:51:48 PM PST by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

So then who were the natural born citizens before the 14th Amendment????????????


79 posted on 01/11/2010 1:00:29 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
A debate with you, Non-Sqequter, is like a debate with Bill Clinton.

The meaning of “Is” is subject to interpretation. “Arms” is not defined in the constitution, therefore congress can out law guns and must not regulate T-shirts.

Natural born Citizen is not defined, therefore A British born Subject can run for president.

When the terms of language are set upon quicksand as you insist, there is no constitution. There is no law. There is no justice. People then set the rules on their own terms with their own instruments of justice, as they must, as they are forced to.

80 posted on 01/11/2010 1:06:00 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
It strikes me as strange to insist in this case on an explicit definition in the Constitution itself, given the fact that the Constitution routinely uses a lot of other terms without defining them; and so, quite a few interpretations in many other cases (not just regarding natural-born citizenship) have been based on discerning the intent of the framers and determining their likely use of language as understood at the time. Why is that not allowed now?

Because at the time you had at least two different schools of thought on the definition of natural-born citizen. The true test is how it is defined in federal law or in Supreme Court decisions. In three of the four cases mentioned, the circumstances of birth were not matters before the court at the time. In the fourth case, the Ark decision, the court ruled that Ark was a citizen of the U.S. from birth regardless of the nationality of the parents. Again, since the Constitution only identifies two forms of citizenship, citizen at birth and citizen by birth and natural-born citizen are all synonymous.

81 posted on 01/11/2010 1:07:53 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
When the terms of language are set upon quicksand as you insist, there is no constitution. There is no law. There is no justice. People then set the rules on their own terms with their own instruments of justice, as they must, as they are forced to.

That's the problem. There is law. There is justice. There is a Constitution. You just choose to ignore it.

82 posted on 01/11/2010 1:14:49 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
So then who were the natural born citizens before the 14th Amendment????????????

The answer to that would depend partly on what the law said at the time. Naturalization law has changed frequently during our history.

83 posted on 01/11/2010 1:16:07 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
That's the problem. There is law. There is justice. There is a Constitution.

There is an SR511 for John McCain.

There is no SR511 for Barry O.

You just choose to ignore it.

Yep -- you sure do.

84 posted on 01/11/2010 1:21:13 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; STE=Q

John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Barack Obama admits to being a foreigner — he admits to being a citizen of Kenya and a British subject.


85 posted on 01/11/2010 1:21:41 PM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Sure they do — all FIVE of them:

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm#FiveCases


86 posted on 01/11/2010 1:23:55 PM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
Barack Obama admits to being a foreigner — he admits to being a citizen of Kenya and a British subject.

His Kenyan citizen lapsed when he turned 21 so he's no longer a citizen of any foreign country. And he's also a U.S. citizen from birth, which means he is a natural-born citizen.

87 posted on 01/11/2010 1:24:34 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
There is an SR511 for John McCain.

A non-binding Senate resolution? Whoopie. But if non-binding resolutions are the be-all and end-all for you then how about HR 593 which recognized the 50th anniversary of Hawaiian statehood and it's status as the birthplace of the current president? Does that solve it for you?

88 posted on 01/11/2010 1:27:58 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The answer to that would depend partly on what the law said at the time. Naturalization law has changed frequently during our history.

So then the Constitutional qualifications for the Presidency kept changing as Naturalization Law kept changing???

And as Congress was rewriting Naturalization Law all those different times, they were also amending the Constitution by those same laws???

Is that what you are saying????

89 posted on 01/11/2010 1:29:46 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
Sure they do — all FIVE of them...

Four of them were listed in this article. Of those, three do not deal with natural-born citizenship and a clear reading of the Ark case indicates that the court ruled that he was a natural-born citizen regardless of his parent's citizenship.

90 posted on 01/11/2010 1:31:36 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
A non-binding Senate resolution? Whoopie.

A non-binding resolution based upon the study of the cases in this article.

Does Obama have a non-binding SR511???

91 posted on 01/11/2010 1:34:30 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
So then the Constitutional qualifications for the Presidency kept changing as Naturalization Law kept changing???

Nope. The Constitutional requirements have remained the same. Natural born citizen. Over 35. Fourteen years a resident in this country.

And as Congress was rewriting Naturalization Law all those different times, they were also amending the Constitution by those same laws???

No. Laws do not amend the Constitution. But the Constitution does not define natural-born citizen.

Is that what you are saying????

Not at all.

92 posted on 01/11/2010 1:34:33 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“And he’s also a U.S. citizen from birth, which means he is a natural-born citizen.”

So is Pedro the anchor baby?

You are mistaken at the very least.

Naturl Born Citizens MUST have CITIZEN PARENTS.


93 posted on 01/11/2010 1:35:08 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
A non-binding resolution based upon the study of the cases in this article.

ROTFLMAO!!!! That resolution referenced federal law and not a single one of the cases mentioned.

Does Obama have a non-binding SR511???

HR 593.

94 posted on 01/11/2010 1:36:07 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

So then just what was “natural born citizen” understood to mean before the 14th Amendment????


95 posted on 01/11/2010 1:37:12 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

“His Kenyan citizen lapsed’

That’s an ODD statement about the supposed President of the United States.


96 posted on 01/11/2010 1:37:13 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
HR 593.

Did the Senate that unanimously approved McCain's SR511 vote on that yet??? Why not???

97 posted on 01/11/2010 1:39:44 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

” the Ark case indicates that the court ruled that he was a natural-born citizen regardless of his parent’s citizenship. “

Absolutely FALSE. You need to go read the decision again.

~as much a CITIZEN as a Natural Born Citizen.

Comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?


98 posted on 01/11/2010 1:40:57 PM PST by Lower55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Where is your definition of "natural born citizen" before the 14th Amendment???
99 posted on 01/11/2010 1:44:04 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
His Kenyan citizen lapsed when he turned 21 so he's no longer a citizen of any foreign country. And he's also a U.S. citizen from birth, which means he is a natural-born citizen.

The House passes a non binding resolution recognizing Hawaii as the 50th state and Abercombie throws Obama a bone stating he was born there. The Senate passes a non binding resolution stating McCain is some type of citizen. I find this quite humorous.

Since the proverbial horse has left the barn, impeachment of the current occupant of the White House is the logical remedy to remove him from office with the caveat of evidence to support Constitutional requirements.

100 posted on 01/11/2010 2:00:57 PM PST by afnamvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-164 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