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

To: Nero Germanicus

You mean they didn’t take the opportunity in 1874 to cite Vattel and Common Law?


67 posted on 04/01/2015 4:28:36 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]


To: jjotto

The Minor v Happersett decision said, in part: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

Both sides in the Obama eligibility debate have used this citation. Pro-Obama uses the first part and anti-Obama uses the later sentences.


68 posted on 04/01/2015 4:48:17 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | 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