Please xzins, you have repeated this a number of times, and apparently not read the 1795 Act. I hope we write to inform those interested enough to read.
“The Naturalization Act of 1795 - An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the Act heretofore passed on that Subject. For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States;"
The 1795 Act repealed the 1790 Act, in its entirety. Here is law that replaced what was repealed:
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.<.u>
This was the Act Mark Levin, from whom I have learned and continue to learn a great deal. Levin stated, when asked about his views on natural born citizenship, that it was not an issue he had studied. I can't know his motives, but he was absolutely wrong in citing the 1790 act, either regarding Cruz or McCain. This was the act cited by Larry Tribe with Ted Olson, in Resolution 511 in April 2008, as McCaskill, Leahy, Clinton and Obama provided talking points, a “resolution has no weight of law”, so no one would ask eligibility questions, Democrats having spent years demonstrating McCain's noncompliance. Tribe, like Levin, didn't bother to mention the 1795 Act. I have no doubt that Tribe knew the truth. I believe Levin has too much respect for the amendment process to flaunt the intent of our framers, and so will withhold guesses conjecture about why he is so in conflict with settled law.
The sentiment, that children of military citizens be ‘reputed’ (from Vattel) natural born citizens, is one with which I agree, and believe one that deserves an amendment. But Obama and McCaskill’s SB 2678, from Feb 2008, the “Children of Military Families Natural born Citizen Act” failed to pass. It could have led to an amendment.
Tennesee Nana makes an excellent point. Any who believe that Hillary, who knows the law, and whose party has two Obama Supreme Court appointees who have not recused themselves from the pretrial hearing where the court decides to hear or not, an Article II case. The Supreme Court is clearly politicized. If an election is close, I would be surprised if Hillary, or a surrogate, like her Philip Berg, didn't challenge anyone whose eligibility was not beyond doubt, as is Hillary's. When a Republican tried, Nathan Deal of Georgia, the response came from the House, which used the IRS to bring ethics charges after perusing Deal's unaudited income tax returns from long ago.
Eligibility was certainly questioned during the Woodrow Wilson election, and Breckenridge Long, later in FDR's State Department, wrote a lengthy brief in Chicago Legal News, Volume 49, explaining the never doubted John Jay, Marshall, Vattel, Morrison Waite, Horace Gray, Evans-Hughes definition, and why Charles Evans Hughes, Wilson's Republican Opponent, was ineligible - Hughes’ parents were British citizens.
Many questions were raised about Chester Arthur, who nominated Horace Gray for the Supreme Court. Arthur never produced a birth certificate and was not removed by the Senate, there not being sufficient proof. Arthur, as discovered in 2008 by Leo Donofrio, always had a Vermont birth certificate, but hid it, probably to distract from the a fact never suspected or raised, Arthur's father was a British citizen, naturalizing when Arthur was 14, making Arthur our only other ineligible president.
Please try to remember that The Constitution does not, by design, contain definitions. If definitions in the Constitution were the criterion for whether we decide to respect its articles, the Constitution would be meaningless, which is probably the objective of many so-called progressives. Only one term is defined in the Constitution, which term I'll leave as an exercise.
Treason!
Ted Cruz - 2016
As has been written many times, a couple of things need to be acknowledged:
1. The 1795 law expanded on, and made more certain, the language of the 1790 law.
2. It is not unusual for a law that has been superceded to be repealed. The 1795 law was itself repealed after a while. You might notice no current law mentions the requirement of being white: "SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: --"
The 1790 law is the first law ever written on the subject. It serves a great function still, though, because it gives a definition of natural born citizen. That definition includes everyone born overseas to US citizens. That definition was affirmed by many of the Founders who were in congress and voted for that law, and it was affirmed via signing by George Washington, who had himself presided over the Constitutional Convention that used the expression "natural born citizen" in the Constitution. These same people, including George Washington, turned right around and used that term "natural born citizen" and helped define their intention for all time. Natural born citizen, they affirmed, included those born overseas to US citizens.
The 1795 law makes that reality even MORE binding by saying that "the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:"
In other words, this law AGAIN says that the children born to citizens overseas are citizens at birth. In fact, and you must notice this -- It says that those children have that citizenship BY RIGHT. It also says those children have that citizenship BY DESCENT from a citizen parent.
It is not naturalized citizenship. And if it is NOT naturalized it is automatic. That is what natural means...automatic based on the very NATURE of their birth.
They are NATURAL born citizens. They are not NATURALIZED citizens.
The first, NATURAL, is automatic. The second, NATURALIZED, is by government act.
I appreciate the education in each post, along with your teaching style.
Take it from someone conceived and welcomed to the world by the fading light of infatuation, placing logic in front of infatuation can be dangerous and is almost always discouraging.
But, the effort isn't wasted...
Thank you