Replies

The point is the definition they used for a Natural Born Citizen: ‘as to exclude those from the privileges of natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parents’

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the law on the subject of naturalization, as to exclude those from the privileges of natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parents who have been removed, or shall remove, from the United States, and have taken or shall take the oath of allegiance to the Government in which they so reside, until such person shall become naturalized like other foreigners, agreeably to the laws that now do or hereafter may exist on that subject.

Obot’s can’t spin this one away. That is what is fustrating them. Boo hoo....

The POINT is that this resolution, no matter how suggestive, does not have the force of law unless it was included in a bill, passed by both Houses of Congress, and then signed into law by the President of the United States.

You can find a nice elementary-level description of the process here.

So ... did this nice language ever become law? If not, it's just nice language, but legally meaningless.

"The point is the definition they used for a Natural Born Citizen: ‘as to exclude those from the privileges of natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parents’"

As opposed to all the other natiral-born citizens who are not born of parents.

This is your funniest one yet. Steve.