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

To: Jeff Winston; Larry - Moe and Curly

What SCOTUS case, ever, stated that simply being born in U.S. jurisdiction and regardless of parental citizenship makes one a “nautral Born Citizen?”


56 posted on 01/02/2013 4:04:53 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: rxsid

Wong Kim Ark. I’m pretty sure we talked about it last year.

Somebody here accused me of not having read Wong Kim Ark. But the problem is, I DID read it. In fact, I read it carefully. And so have some of the other folks here.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why the Supreme Court turns down the “natural born citizen” birther cases without even commenting on them. They already decided the issue of whether citizen parents are needed, long ago.


58 posted on 01/02/2013 8:04:07 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

To: rxsid
By the way, as I observed here, if birthers had a Constitutional case, Mark Levin would be all over it, starting long ago.

Heck. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would've been all over it, too.

But especially Levin. Oh, and folks like Hillsdale College. And folks like the Heritage Foundation. I hear of these folks all the time on the radio. Not one peep about some imagined requirement of citizen parents to be a "natural born citizen."

I just looked up "Constitution" and "Heritage Foundation." Guess what I found?

From here:

Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President. As early as 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." 1 Stat. 104 (1790). The "natural born" terminology was dropped shortly thereafter. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c). But the question remains whether the term "natural born Citizen" used in Article II includes the parliamentary rule of jus sanguinis in addition to the common law principle of jus soli. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of "citizen" in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born–citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship though jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's discussion in Wong Kim Ark, a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.

59 posted on 01/02/2013 8:41:15 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | 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