|
rulemylife -> RE: Birther News (3/8/2011 7:04:12 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: truckinslave
Something I should have included in the OP from the post in The Steady Drip
In Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, the Supreme Court, made an incidental reference to the issue: "[N]ew citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. 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." 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).
Yet another reason we need a precise definition from SCOTUS. The careful reader of the above will note that the Court seems inadvertently to have used "citizen" and "natural born citizen" interchangeably, something not only nonsensical but clearly prohibited by Marbury v, Madison.
We need a definition.
No, what we need is to focus on real issues that are affecting the country and stop listening to this horseshit.
|
|
|
|
