Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 52,660
- 15,670
All false and I didn't run from anything. I went Speckeled Trout fishing with my racially aware grandkids.Oh Stephen....here's the argument that sent you running just yesterday:
"The only plausible source (and by far most likely) source of the meaning of 'natural born' for the founders....was British Common law. Most of the framers were lawyers, with all of them having been trained in the British legal tradition. So of course British common law would be their basis. Vattel's law of nation's didn't even mention 'natural born' until about a decade after the constitution was already written. Eliminating it as even a possibility.
And British Common law recognized place of birth as determining natural born status. As the USSC noted in Wong Kim Ark.
Your 'US parents' definition was contradicted by the founders themselves in the Naturalization Act of 1790.....where they recognized that those born to US citizens abroad "shall be considered as natural born citizens". If parentage were the ONLY way natural born status could be conferred, why in the fuck would the founders have found it necessary to extend recognition to those born to US parents? And why would they use the words ''shall be considered as"?
Simple: place of birth was the baseline for natural born status. Which is why those not born in the US had to have natural born status extended to them by force of law. And were merely 'considered as' natural born per the founders.
An explicit contradiction of your assumptions.
Sorry, StormFront.....but you have no idea what you're talking about. Which is why you abandon every thread you're challenged in on your bullshit. As your bullshit doesn't hold up. And we both know it."
Laughing.....odd you always go 'trout fishing' whenever I shred your silly batshit. This board is a wasteland of you 'trout fishing' with our tail tucked snuggly between your legs.
You say its 'false', but the Supreme Court has already affirmed that British common law is where the founders drew their definitions. So.....the burden of proof is on you to prove the Supreme Court wrong.
And you can't. Time to go 'trout fishing' against Stephen.