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

To: Mr Rogers
For those interested, the US Supreme Court has already said that the 14th merely echoes, using different words, what was already established by the NBC clause.

The paragraph you cited doesn't say anything at all about the NBC clause. Why are you telling outright and obvious lies??

100 posted on 06/20/2012 2:58:16 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]


To: edge919

“The paragraph you cited doesn’t say anything at all about the NBC clause. Why are you telling outright and obvious lies??”

Why are you too stupid to read?

“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words...the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

The principles upon which each of those exceptions rests were long ago distinctly stated by this court. [p683]”


101 posted on 06/20/2012 3:50:09 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | 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