It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Wiki having a edit war. Deleting references to natural born citzens being from 2 citizen parents.

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:26 PM

Wikipedia has undergone further sanitizing of the philosophical underpinnings of what it means to be a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution requires for U.S. presidents, the latest in an ongoing "edit war" at the online encyclopedia.

In the most recent development, an unnamed "editor" deleted in its entirety a section of a Wikipedia entry for Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, whom Founding Fathers such as Benjamin Franklin have credited for his influence on early American policy formation.

The deleted segment, titled "USA Constitution," had included a reference to de Vattel's 1757 treatise "The Law of Nations," which defined natural-born citizenship as "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

edit on 4-5-2011 by ntech because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:33 PM
reply to post by ntech

The Constitution did not say BOTH parents, it said parents, that could be one and historically that is all it took so long as you were born in this country. If you were born in another country and are not part of the diplomatic or military then you are a citizen of that country even if both your parents are American.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:48 PM
Birthers need to get over this, do you even realize what you are making yourselves look like? If you don't like Obama than fine, dislike him and call out the legitamate things you don't like and stop inventing stuff. It is very clear so quit the attempts at manipulating words.

To be a natural born citizen a person must EITHER be born on US soil OR if born on a miltary base or other similar US foreign owned facilities it must be to US citizens.

See the EITHER/OR?

Do you honestly think he could have run for president if were not proven he was a natural born citizen? Don't you think his many opponents throughout the government would be all over this and called for his impeachment if they had any ground to stand on? Wake up!

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:02 PM

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by ntech

The Constitution did not say BOTH parents, it said parents, that could be one

Not a birther here, but how does the plural of "parent" imply the singular? One can have only two natural parents, therefore, BOTH would be understood when using the plural. Example; Your mother and father are your parents. Your mother is your parent, and your father is your parent. You would not say "my mother is my parents" or "my father are my parents".

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:38 PM
The terms ‘parent’ or ‘parents’ nowhere appear in the Constitution. Natural born citizen is not defined in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has ruled it is derived from the common law doctrine of birthright citizenship.

The Supreme Court, in Wong Kim Ark (1898), has unequivocally stated that anyone, except children of diplomats and children of enemy soldiers, born in the United States is a natural born citizen. That is settled law. Has been for over a century.

Only people ignorant of the law, or purposely ignoring it, can keep pushing this two citizen parents nonsense.

Now, concerning the OP link. If you look at the wiki entry WND is complaining about someone deleting, anyone with even a basic understanding of the Constitution understands why it’s complete and utter nonsense.

In it is alleged “[t]he Constitution of the United Stations of America Article I Section 8 refers to the law of nations,” and it quotes the define and punish clause (“to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations”).

Whoever added it to wikipedia implies the term “law of nations” used in the clause is a reference to Vattel’s treatise, and thus Vattel’s two citizen parents definition is the one ‘in’ the Constitution. I’ve seen this kind of ignorance about the Constitution here on ATS as well, a few days ago, when a member suggested the same thing. Must’ve got this stupid idea from the same birther sources.

The “law of nations” in the Constitution is a term of art which means international law. It’s absurd beyond words to suggest it’s actually a reference to the title of a particular book!

I’ve honestly never seen so much ignorance on ATS as I’ve seen in birther threads, put forward by birthers or their favorite publications like the WND.

new topics

top topics

log in