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

To: transducer

“Not so (see United States v. Wong Kim Ark.”

You are confusing the notion of citizenship with the natural born citizen requirement. I don’t know if you are deliberately doing this, or are ignorant. The case you cited above has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The SCOTUS case which deals with this is Minor v. Happersette, 1874.


43 posted on 01/27/2012 7:30:26 AM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: lacrew; transducer
The SCOTUS case which deals with this is Minor v. Happersette, 1874.

Yep. I linked and quoted it in my last post, above.

58 posted on 01/27/2012 7:41:56 AM PST by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: lacrew
He's not confused, it's willful ignorance.

The entire story is playing to the ignorant masses which is the dems base, trying to make them believe citizen and NBC are one and the same.

Expect future stories on how Rich White Republicans consider blacks to be 3/5 of a person and not a citizen.

103 posted on 01/27/2012 8:12:51 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | 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