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

To: Red Steel

“are only native born are US citizen because of a constitutional amendment”

Oh, “only” because of some amendment, huh? I guess that means we can ignore it.

“which purpose was to make former slaves US citizens”

Ah, but it didn’t say that, did it? They could have written “all persons born on U.S. soil who used to be slaves and have rich, dark molasses skin,” but they didn’t. We tend to let “original intent” run away with itself. Intent is in line after plain meaning. If the intent says more than or contradicts what the text itself says, the text controls. We can’t assume the Framer’s didn’t mean it the way it is.


34 posted on 04/18/2012 3:34:01 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: Tublecane
Ah, but it didn’t say that, did it?

Ah it didn't have to say it was about making former slaves into citizens. There wouldn't have been any reconstruction amendment for that matter if the civil war was not fought. No civil war no "Reconstruction Amendments" like the 14th Amendment.

Until you guys acknowledge that there is a distinction between natural law and positive law, we will just go around and around.

45 posted on 04/18/2012 3:59:16 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ 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