To: okie01
It's the opinion of the Supreme Court in the MINOR V. HAPPERSETT case.
It's also the opinion of the House of Representatives during the debates on the issues of citizenship and the 14th Amendment.
164 posted on
08/25/2011 1:01:57 PM PDT by
rxsid
(HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
To: rxsid
Hmmmm. Why come you don’t put a date on that case so everybody can see what year it was???
165 posted on
08/25/2011 1:15:07 PM PDT by
Squeeky
("Truth is so rare that it is delightful to tell it. " Emily Dickinson)
To: rxsid
Hmmmm. Why come you don’t put a date on that case so everybody can see what year it was???
166 posted on
08/25/2011 1:15:29 PM PDT by
Squeeky
("Truth is so rare that it is delightful to tell it. " Emily Dickinson)
To: rxsid
It's the opinion of the Supreme Court in the MINOR V. HAPPERSETT case. In Minor v. Happersett the Supreme Court did not say that persons born in the U.S. of non-citizen parents were not natural born citizens, nor did the court say that they were natural born citizens. It merely acknowledged that some authorities believed that they were and also noted that other authorities had doubts about it. And the court explicitly stated that it was not their purpose to resolve those doubts one way or the other.
168 posted on
08/25/2011 1:27:40 PM PDT by
SoJoCo
To: rxsid
It's the opinion of the Supreme Court in the MINOR V. HAPPERSETT case. It's also the opinion of the House of Representatives during the debates on the issues of citizenship and the 14th Amendment. Fine. Then, if this was a matter of settled law, why wasn't Obama's candidacy smothered in the crib?
185 posted on
08/25/2011 4:00:26 PM PDT by
okie01
(THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson