tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9054996996505993423.post957771966819123503..comments2023-11-02T01:43:32.946-07:00Comments on Rural South Texas Life: Kind of backDianehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17765443131151220391noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9054996996505993423.post-32987473036598890822012-02-13T13:14:04.275-08:002012-02-13T13:14:04.275-08:00I really wish he would. He keeps citing material ...I really wish he would. He keeps citing material that is in no wise binding in the courts. Just one person's opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9054996996505993423.post-56224000266297828172012-02-08T11:28:43.436-08:002012-02-08T11:28:43.436-08:00Ok "anonymous" who can't be arsed to...Ok "anonymous" who can't be arsed to actually put a name to their posts, as they have no stomach for a rational discussion, You pick & choose - go read the whole thing at the Federalist Blog http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/Dianehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17765443131151220391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9054996996505993423.post-85934000367687805802012-02-06T13:18:56.487-08:002012-02-06T13:18:56.487-08:00http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirth...http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/why-the-birthers-lost/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9054996996505993423.post-49674537766297630792012-02-06T11:29:29.963-08:002012-02-06T11:29:29.963-08:00Re Bingham.
He also said:
“Who does not know tha...Re Bingham.<br /><br />He also said:<br /><br />“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9054996996505993423.post-32606600671098788872012-02-06T11:27:44.498-08:002012-02-06T11:27:44.498-08:00Since the meaning of Natural Born under the common...Since the meaning of Natural Born under the common law simply means a US citizen who was born in the country, not one who was naturalized, in fact any native born citizen is also a Natural Born Citizen.<br /><br />That is not turning the Constitution on its head. That has always been the law.<br /><br />“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President...."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]<br /><br />Here is an example of how Natural Born Citizen was used in 1803, shortly after the US Constitution was adopted:<br /><br />"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)<br /><br />As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth. There is no mention of parents, only of the place. Natural Born Citizens were "those born within a state."<br /><br />And here is how it was used in 1829:<br /><br />"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9054996996505993423.post-70124406571645231982012-02-06T11:18:01.077-08:002012-02-06T11:18:01.077-08:00Diane:
Crocheting a TABLE CLOTH???
(wow)
That soun...Diane:<br />Crocheting a TABLE CLOTH???<br />(wow)<br />That sounds pretty ambitious...good luck with it.<br /><br /><br />As to the nat-borners...<br />Although the "father" has such precedent of "ownership to parentage"...smacks back to Victorian times, when women were viewed as more 2nd class citizens...I suppose that it makes sense, even in times like today.<br /><br />I know that many times (in the ghettohood) claiming of an infant (read custody battles and crimes of passion) by the father (purely for convenience purposes, and IF they can figure out WHO the hell he really is) is often challenged...and frequently denied.<br />Courts tend to lean more towards females...but in some cases, that IS changing (like when "mom" is a crack-ho)<br /><br />Have to say you nailed the explnation perfectly.<br />Nice homework you "done did"...lol.<br /><br />Stay safe down there.Bob G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09222203353717749897noreply@blogger.com