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

To: John Valentine
That’s “do your own research”. Until you have done that, all you have is smoke.

That's one of the most unusual posts ever addressed to me. You spent sentence after sentence making the case that precise definition of "natural born citizen" has never been defined by the courts, but constantly preach to me to do research into all the scholarship that has, as yet, failed to define precisely what the term means.

The term hasn't been defined by the courts, up to the SCOTUS, so it hasn't been defined.

And would you care to point out to me what rights of citizenship anchor babies are now denied? And they will not be denied the opportunity to run for president, either, as I discussed with another poster in my #313.

The video had some good background, but could lead some to think this question has been answered. It hasn't, and mentioning the Senate resolution on McCain as it was mentioned was very misleading.

I think we might agree that the term has never been precisely defined, so no one can say what it would or would not prevent or allow in 2008 and beyond. But I'd sure put my money on the anchor babies being able to run for president.

329 posted on 01/03/2009 11:44:41 AM PST by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies ]


To: Will88

I guess I don’t express myself well.

My point was that the term “natural born citizen” does not need to be defined. It is already defined. The definition is the definition as it was understood by the framers. I have already said what that was. If you want the Supreme Court to confirm that, great. I hope they do. But let’s be clear. They WON’T be defining the term. That has already been done. The Supreme Court will be, in effect, showing folks like you the dictionary.

Anchor babies have every right of citizenship currently enjoyed by other statutory citizens, and natural born citizens, except one. They can’t be President.

BTW, there is NO legal basis for ‘anchor babies’ citizenship, let alone natural-born citizenship. Even US v. Wong Kim Ark is not on point.

But, you can be sure that any child born in the US to parents in the US with no legal basis whatsoever cannot be said to be born to parents with no competing allegiance or not subject to the jurisdiction of another nation. That would be ludicrous. Ergo, not natural-born.


335 posted on 01/03/2009 11:52:58 AM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | 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