Posted on 01/07/2016 11:32:52 AM PST by The Looking Spoon
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was REPEALED in 1795, due in part to concerns about possible negative repercussions to the natural born citizen provisions of Article II. Note the emphasis in the 1790 Act on the FATHER. The framers were patriarchical, and they believed that the citizenship of the children followed the citizenship condition of the FATHERS. That emphasis was due in large measure to their reliance upon the Emmerich de Vattel definition of natural born citizen derived from the “Law of Nations” which is referred to in the opening clause of Article I.
The only definition for a constitutional term within the constitution is for the crime of treason. There is no definition for high crimes and misdemeanors either, but that has not stopped impeachment matters from proceeding.
Also, even in the 1790 Act, the wording of it made reference to parent(s) plural, not singular.
Finally, NO STATUTE can modify the meaning or intent of a constitutional provision. That can only be done thru an Article V amendment process.
You’re right, and I knew that the law and the one of 1795 was superseded by future laws. I admittedly didn’t catch that it just says “citizen” in section 3...
But it sets up an interesting question of whether there truly are two classes of born citizens. I know where you stand.
There are others who contend that someone who is born a citizen and doesn’t have to go through any naturalization process would thus be considered natural born by virtue of the fact they don’t have to be naturalized.
I’ve also seen arguments that contend the 1795 act doesn’t explicitly redefine the term in Article II because “natural born” was left out.
Apparently it’s all above my paygrade...but again, I know where you stand. :-)
“...I see nothing more illogical in politics these days than people propagating the notion that the son of a foreign citizen could also simultaneously be a natural born citizen of the United States...”
Does his mother’s US citizenship count for anything?
It isn’t above your paygrade. The concept that the Constitution can only be understood by Constitutional lawyers is mal-education.
The Constitution isn’t that difficult to understand.
Justification for some of the crap federal judges have come up with...THAT might require a post-graduate degree in such matters.
I agree it’s not difficult to understand, but in areas that are not clearly defined is it not hard to see why the debate over those items becomes so contentious?
It happens even on a thread like this where we are all conservatives with very similar worldviews. That proves how open and shut this case isn’t.
The same way climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by human activity.
There are dissenting legal scholars, and there are dissenting climate scientists.
Not really. There are counterpoints to their contentions, and their contentions depend on overlooking remarks in SCOTUS citizenship cases.
I am going to assume that you are not open to a point of view that disagrees with your conclusion, IOW, you have no interest in challenging or questioning your conclusions, nor are you open to revising them. Suffice to say that the conterpoints are easily found in all the FR threads on this subject.
That was the residency requirement he was speaking of, I think., The one that is part of “35 y/o, NBC, resident for 14” presidential qualifications.
I’m well aware that other points of view exist. I did start this thread after all, and I have read, considered, and even engaged the dissenters. So what you’re implying perplexes me.
No implication, just another way of saying I wasn’t going to engage in personalized correspondence with you (no hard feelings, honest), and whatever it was I was claiming, there are all sorts of posts with supporting authority.
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.