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

To: Josephat

That might explain it, but it doesn’t explain how this court simply contradicted itself. It noted that Wong Kim Ark never declared the appellee to be a natural-born citizen. It noted that after the passage of the 14th amendment, that the Supreme Court said the Constitution does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. The definition that Minor used matches Vattel’s from the Law of Nations. It also doesn’t explain why it said the children of alien parents was contemplated but that the question of the children of aliens was somehow left open, when clearly Minor says that such children ONLY become citizens when the father naturalizes.


34 posted on 01/10/2012 3:43:01 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: edge919
It noted that after the passage of the 14th amendment, that the Supreme Court said the Constitution does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens.

This is a very important point. The O-bots all claim the 14th amendment makes anyone born here a "natural born citizen" but the Minor Court was well aware of the 14th amendment, and yet it still says "the constitution does not say who shall be natural born citizens."

This can only be read as the supreme court explicitly recognizing that the 14th amendment is NOT a definition for "natural born citizen."

Thanks edge for another arrow in my quiver.

70 posted on 01/11/2012 6:48:25 AM PST by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | 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