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

To: Kansas58
I only present to you that your citation, due to the rules of the English Language, are not exclusive.

You don't seem to understand the rules of English. These "rules" are what makes the definition exclusive. The other thing that makes the definition exclusive is the context of why the definition was given. There's no point in singling out citizen parents unless it establishes a completely separate class of citizens — separate from the 14th amendment upon which Virginia Minor made her claim to citizenship — which is what the court did. That separate class was the ONLY class of citizens characterized as natural-born citizens.

Toward the end of the decision, the court says: "Our province is to decide what the law is, not to declare what it should be." So when they defined natural-born citizenship, that set of criteria — born in the country to citizen parents — is what the law is. You're trying to say that a class of citizens for whom the court said there is doubt is what NBC should be. That's not what the court said, because there is doubt about them just being citizens. Resolving doubts might make them citizens, but it wouldn't make them natural-born citizens ... because there is only one set of criteria for which there is no doubt. That lack of doubt is what makes that class "natural-born." The citation does NOT allow for other forms of natural-born citizenship, else that characterization would not have been placed in the sentence immediately following the type of citizenship for which there is no doubt.

The other problem is that the source of their definition, which is clearly from the law of nations does NOT allow for so-called "other forms of Natural Born Citizenship." Read the law of nations. There's no other natural-born citizenship described or allowed for. Why would the court use a narrow definition if it is intentionally allowing for "other forms of Natural Born Citizenship"??? The answer: They wouldn't.

317 posted on 02/02/2012 8:08:13 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies ]


To: edge919

You are just silly.
The Courts said, in the Citations given, that there was NO Constitutional guidance on NBC.
Therefore, the Courts used other authorities available.
Those authorities? Common Law!

Congress then enacted Legislative Law that TRUMPS common law.

Therefore, your Court case citations, ALL OF THEM, are MOOT!


339 posted on 02/02/2012 10:16:32 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | 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