Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789

puzo1.blogspot.com ^ | 4/2/2010 | Mario Apuzzo, Esq

[presently no screen name]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2485787/posts

The Left Claims They Can’t Find Anyone Who Says Obamacare is Illegal

[rolling_stone]

you have a good point. It seems reasonable to me that his father was a naturalized US citizen, as the election of 1856 was hotly contested-slavery vs no slavery and much was brought up about Fremont's birth, but I saw nothing concerning NBC (as of yet) I am unsure when his father came to the US and in the 1790’s he could have been a citizen just by taking an oath off the ship he came on..

http://www.stlgs.org/natProcess.htm

interesting enough the 1856 election Republicans worried about the huge fraudulent naturalization of aliens in Pennsylvania(by democrats) in return for their votes..

see the footnote #10 at page 139 from link below. Some interesting reading about Fremont and the election and his birth controversy

http://books.google.com/books?id=sYFVlFO5D0EC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=charles+fremon&source=bl&ots=PZwtIFWwJM&sig=n4MXYGcyqvNhPPQ0JIE5XWvy-1Y&hl=en&ei=mKu2S6zdB4iSsgOhj5iXBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAcQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=charles%20fremon&f=false

[Technical Editor]

Are you still holding to your previously posted drivel?:"

Technical Editor said: The citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours. If you are a U.S. citizen now, and you never were naturalized as a U.S. citizen, then you are a natural born citizen.

It's not drivel; it's the truth. It's U.S. law. An anchor baby can grow up to be president if people vote for him or her, because an anchor baby is a natural born citizen. Whether anyone would, however, is an open question, but we see that a lot of airheads voted for Obama, who had a lot against him besides an uncertain birth story. Ever heard of a child born to illegal immigrants who had to go through a naturalization process? Of course not. They are citizens by birth, natural born citizens. That's what all the ruckus is about regarding illegal immigrants (or at least part of the ruckus). They qualify for all the rights and services reserved for American citizens simply by being born here. Aren't all you opponents of illegal immigration talking about that fact as well as the general outrageousness of the illegals being here illegally and tolerated both by government and business?

Once again: If you never had to go through the naturalization process to become an American Citizen, and you are presently a citizen of the United States, then you were either:

• Born in the United States of parents who might or might not be American citizens.
• Born outside the United States of parents who are United States citizens.
• Born outside the United States of parents, at least one of whom is an American citizen. Both the citizen parent and the noncitizen parent of a child born overseas have to meet certain criteria set forth in the law.

One more time:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

[rolling_stone]

The citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours.

So if you were born in a foreign country the citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours? Drivel. By your thinking a foundling can be President according to statute.

Still waiting for you to post the State department opinion...hint there is a difference between a citizen per statute and natural born citizen for Constitutional eligibility purposes...

[Red Steel]

One more time:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401

§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

One more time...heck probably a thousand more times. 1401 does not define who is a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN".

[parsifal]

They obviously haven’t read here:

http://volokh.com/

parsy, who says a lot of these guys are professors of law.

[parsifal]

They obviously haven’t read here:

http://volokh.com/

parsy, who says a lot of these guys are professors of law.

[presently no screen name]

They obviously haven’t read here

Well, obviously, we are talking about 1789. Who came first - volokh or David Ramsay?

[presently no screen name]

Sorry, I see you were referring to the link I sent you and not the thread we are on.

Here’s another....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/02/100-percent-repeal-of-obamacare/

[parsifal]

On the health care stuff. One of the Volokh guys has already debated the issue on the radio. Others there have their doubts, too. Volokh is kinda conservative.

parsy

[presently no screen name]

I posted Post #129 for you, not me.;)

[presently no screen name]

I didn’t read it - I’m going on empty right now.

[parsifal]

No problem. You have to work your way thru Volokh but there are several very reasoned threads/arguments about why HCR is unconstitutional, and at least one radio show.

parsy

[rxsid]

DUH! lol. your right. most deffinately. thanks!

[rxsid]

If he wasn’t born in country, to two citizen parents...he wan’t eligible then, nor now per the intent and understanding of the men who wrote the requirement into the Constitution.

[presently no screen name]

Thanks.

[rxsid]

As for why American’s in 1856, may or may not (you’ve given no sources) have questioned his status...the obvious answer would be, you’d need to ask them. As was already pointed out, it’s a moot issue as he wasn’t elected POTUS. Anyone, even a resident alien green card holder, can run for POTUS. There is no Constitutional requirement that one must be NBC in order to run for office.

[Technical Editor]

The citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours.

TE says: The citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours -- if and only if you are born in the United States.

So if you were born in a foreign country the citizenship of your parents has nothing to do with yours?

No. You need to read 1401. It tells you about that circumstance and what is required.

Drivel. By your thinking a foundling can be President according to statute.

You are misunderstanding what "according to statute" means here in this context. It does not mean that you cannot have a statute that defines who is a citizen at birth (a natural born citizen). It means that if a statute says all resident aliens are now declared U.S. citizens, those citizens are not natural born.

Still waiting for you to post the State department opinion...hint there is a difference between a citizen per statute and natural born citizen for Constitutional eligibility purposes...You are misunderstanding what "according to statute" means here in this context. It does not mean that you cannot have a statute that defines who is a citizen at birth (a natural born citizen). It means that if a statute says all resident aliens are now declared U.S. citizens, those citizens are not natural born.

There have been statutes enacted that take classes of people and make them U.S. citizens by that statute only. Those are the U.S. citizens that are not natural born citizens.

I post what I wish to post only, not what you attempt to manipulate me to post.

[Technical Editor]

If, to you, “citizen at birth” doesn’t mean “natural born citizen,” we are on two different planets, I think. We know that NBC is nowhere “defined,” so we have to think a little. One day it will click for you, but only if you get out of your echo chamber. You thumb your nose at U.S. law, so I guess there’s just no hope for you. You are like a schizophrenic and his visions of things that aren’t there. If you ever return to reality, you’ll understand that 1401 tells you who is a natural born citizen. If you knew how to determine what a reputable source of information about legal issues is, you’d have moved on to other things by now. I hope you come to your senses someday.

[rolling_stone]

No. You need to read 1401. It tells you about that circumstance and what is required.

I am well versed in Citizenship and Immigration Law, and its previous versions. I don't need to read 1401. The applicable law was the McCarren-Walter Act of 1952. You need to understand the difference between a statute and the Constitution. Since you refuse to do any research I will point you to the State Depatment statement:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President;”

c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs 7 FAM 1130 Page 9 of 103

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes .