Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp

“I think he is merely citing the most current version of the naturalization act.”

That may be case but he would surely know that the 1802 law would have no bearing on McClure. His status was decided by the act of 1790 or even 1795. It strikes as very imprecise for someone as precise as James Madison.


144 posted on 01/04/2012 12:27:02 AM PST by 4Zoltan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies ]


To: 4Zoltan
That may be case but he would surely know that the 1802 law would have no bearing on McClure. His status was decided by the act of 1790 or even 1795. It strikes as very imprecise for someone as precise as James Madison.

How can you say the act of 1802 doesn't apply? Doesn't it say this:

SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States

If South Carolina had a naturalization/citizenship law prior to the Naturalization act of 1790, it would cause the act of 1802 to apply, or am I missing something?

152 posted on 01/04/2012 8:25:12 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson