Posted on 01/22/2016 7:58:09 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Again, if it were meant to act in perpetuity, it would NOT have been limited to the time of Constitutional adoption.
---
I find it hard to believe that the framers would favor ONLY those who were naturalized in 1790 and then revoke the same favor to those who meet the same requirement AFTER the constitution was ratified.
I'm assuming you mean adopted, not ratified, but yes - They would if they were trying to define 'at the time of the adoption of this Constitution'.
---
It would be like saying - hey, this particular clause is only intended ONCE and won't apply EVER AGAIN.
That's right, because that generation was the first generation of the new country, there were a few things they were entitled to that no other generation was.
I previously posted dicta from the Ark case. It explains that a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized by authority of congress, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens.
> After all, the old understanding of the term “natural born” is — “having a position by birth.”.
You are conflating “at” and “by”.
RE: Again, if it were meant to act in perpetuity, it would NOT have been limited to the time of Constitutional adoption.
Butt hat is the point I am questioning, was it INTENDED to be LIMITED to the time of the constitutional adoption?
How do we know?
Constitutions are not one shot documents meant only to be applicable once and never again.
RE: I’m assuming you mean adopted, not ratified, but yes - They would if they were trying to define ‘at the time of the adoption of this Constitution’.
Well, the question still is — did “AT THE TIME OF” not include applicable after?
Why not?
RE: because that generation was the first generation of the new country, there were a few things they were entitled to that no other generation was.
I have my doubts about that argument.
If the purpose of a constitution is for it to be for a country’s POSTERITY (which I believe it is ), then the privilege can be given to every generation thereafter.
The issue is not settled.
> Well, the question still is — did “AT THE TIME OF” not include applicable after?
It is a point in time. It is not an infinite number of points extending into the future forever. That would be ridiculous.
RE: WOng Kim Ark
That issue has also been taken into consideration by the Congressional Research Service.
Here is how they concluded it:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their
parents. Just as a person ‘born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject’ at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those ‘born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.
RE: “having a position by birth.”
You are conflating “at” and “by”.
YOU ARE REDEFINING the term “NATURAL BORN”
SEE HERE:
One of the defintions ( archaic ) is:
“having a position by birth.”
RE: It is a point in time. It is not an infinite number of points extending into the future forever. That would be ridiculous.
Why would it be ridiculous? It would be only if we assume that the constitution was FIXED for one point and not applicable for posterity.
Naturalization does not require a process or proceeding. This seems to be a popular misconception.
Yes it does..When the process is completed, the applicant receives a “Certificate of Naturalization”..believe it, I have one.
> One of the defintions ( archaic ) is:
>
> “having a position by birth.”
You are conflating have a position BY birth with having a position AT birth.
Your claims create an impermissible construction, that one provision of the Constitution modify another provision.
The portion you excerpted from the CRS report is a cite of the Ankeny case. Ankeny is jabberwocky.
RE: You are conflating have a position BY birth with having a position AT birth.
Let me try to understand your point of view so that I misrepresent you...
Could you tell me what you have in mind regarding the distinction between AT BIRTH and BY BIRTH?
RE: Ankeny is jabberwocky.
Can you elaborate?
Go read the Ark cite.
“I certainly agree with this and the courts are going to do their very best to continue the dodging.”
In Justice Thomas’s words, they are “evading” the issue, which implies activity beyond just getting out of its way.
“at the time of adoption” is not clear to you? Seriously?
Because it was repealed by the 1795 act and the natural born language was removed.
---
Constitutions are not one shot documents meant only to be applicable once and never again.
The Constitution is meant to be interpreted exactly as it is written. If the adoption clause had no purpose, it would not be there.
-----
did "AT THE TIME OF" not include applicable after? Why not?
Seriously? If it did include after, it wouldn't say 'at the time of'
----
I have my doubts about that argument.
Then please expound on your theory for the purpose of the adoption exception.
-----
The issue is not settled.
That's odd. It was settled enough for generation of schoolchildren to be taught the 'born in the country of citizen parents rule' as well as the exception of military and diplomatic personnel TO that rule. I know this, because I was one of them.
But suddenly, it's *not settled*? LOL! No, it's just not settled in the way some people WANT it to be.
Belive as you will. The choice is yours.
RE: Because it was repealed by the 1795 act and the natural born language was removed.
There is no legislative history indicating the reason for the deletion of that term; however, in that statute the phrase “shall be considered as citizens†referred to the status of minor children derivatively naturalized upon the naturalization of their parents, who are not “natural born,†as well as to the children born abroad to U.S. citizens, so it is possible that the deletion is merely a stylistic/grammatical decision.
RE: The Constitution is meant to be interpreted exactly as it is written. If the adoption clause had no purpose, it would not be there.
I thought you said you are not a textualist? Now you are saying that the text is important ( i.e. “as written”).
Let’s take note that In 1784, the Maryland Legislature extended ‘all the Immunities, Rights and Privileges of natural born Citizen’ to the Marquis de Lafayette ‘and his heirs Male forever.’ And, in 1790, Congress passed a law stating that ‘the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born Citizens.’ It didn’t specify which parent, mother or father or both.
The 1790 statute, however, was not intended to address presidential eligibility. Rather, like earlier English statutes that referred to ‘natural born subjects,’ it exempted children born abroad from the need to follow any other procedures (’to naturalize’) in order to be considered citizens. Then in 1940, Congress passed a statute dispensing with the need for a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen mother to naturalize.
RE: Then please expound on your theory for the purpose of the adoption exception.
Here’s my theory — The framers could have intended the constitution to be APPLICABLE TO POSTERITY. In other words — AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION has the INTENT of “and thereafter” to it.
RE: That’s odd. It was settled enough for generation of schoolchildren to be taught the ‘born in the country of citizen parents rule’ as well as the exception of military and diplomatic personnel TO that rule. I know this, because I was one of them.
Well, that may be to your specific school. I don;t know of any other school in my state that specifically insist in that particular understanding of the “natural born” clause.
RE: But suddenly, it’s *not settled*? LOL!
Laugh all you want, it might have been settled in the mind of the framers, but unfortunately, they never explained in any of their writings ( not even in the Federalist papers ).
RE: No, it’s just not settled in the way some people WANT it to be.
That is of course, an unfair take on those who disagree with you.
Listen, find for me a SPECIFIC text written by the framers ( James madison perhaps ) explaining what they meant by the term then maybe we can settle the issue once and for all but not until.
RE: Belive as you will. The choice is yours.
Here’s my personal take — I’m not sure that your take is the definitive understanding of the term. And to be balanced, I’m not sure mine is either.
I can only say that I have heard no principled argument based in the Constitution for or against your case or mine.
Absent such an argument, the understanding that anyone conceived by an American parent or who is born on American soil is a natural born citizen is PLAUSIBLE.
Is it really plausible that the founders really meant to create three categories of citizenship, natural born, citizen from birth but not natural, and non-citizen at birth but acquired later in life via “naturalization”? Yet they did not actually say so?
Aside from the merits of the case, by what mechanism can one interpretation or another actually be enforced?
I can’t think of any other but the Courts.
But even if they did support yours or mine, there will still be disagreements.
RE: The CRS citing it is disingenuous.
I am asking you a second time, Please elaborate.
RE: “at the time of adoption†is not clear to you? Seriously?
Yes, seriously. Did it mean at the time of adoption and never to be applicable henceforth?
If not, why not?
I’ve explained.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.