Posted on 03/03/2016 8:35:22 AM PST by Ray76
Governor LePage "I also have two daughters born in Canada, and they had to be naturalized, they couldn't be natural."
Howie Carr: "Really? You don't think your daughters could run for President?"
Governor LePage: "They can't. I know they can't. I've already looked into it."
Audio at link
“can’t even produce an America BC like Obama did.”
Obama never did. The two documents Obama produced were proven fakes.
The second long form was fake. But regardless, he produced SOMETHING.
“But regardless, he produced SOMETHING.”
A fake something is a nothing.
No but I may download it to hear later, thanks
Wrong again. Originalist interpretive methodology considers events and people close to the statute in question as high value resources. The 1790 Act was composed by the same group of people who cobbled together our Constitution, and was signed by George Washington, who was believed to be involved in the “natural born” edit to the Constitution. The Act’s NBC language was uncontested by any of them, yet codified in statutory form.
This is important, because In statutory interpretation, we credit Congress with intent to say what they said, so we have no choice but to accept the founders were just fine with discussing and even modifying NBC status in the Naturalization Act. That later generations drifted from that original understanding is not too surprising. There is hardly a single topic in constitutional law where later generations did not drift.
So the facts are what they are. The 1790 Act is important evidence that the birther dichotomy (the popular speculation that NBC and statutory frameworks are mutually exclusive) is a later development that is NOT true to the original principles of the Constitution.
Peace,
SR
> In statutory interpretation, we credit Congress with intent to say what they said
And what did Congress say in the law governing Cruz? It says “citizen”.
Listen... Canada, or Cuba. But he is not eligible in America.
Without the 1790 Act they would not be citizens.
Yes, citizen, of which NBC is a proper subset, and which the Court has consistently recognized as NOT requiring a process of naturalization.
Peace,
SR
No, they only needed the constitutional exclusion for those living at the time of the creation of the Constitution to hold the presidential office. It was the only way in which an NBC is different from the larger class of citizen, and the exclusion covered it. Therefore, the 1790 Act was for others, possibly for the children of the founding generation born in unusual times, the transition of a revolution.
The point is, unlike the FR inventors of law, the founders had no problem putting such a thing in statutory form, and calling it “naturalization.”
Peace,
SR
This does not further your point.
It’s not clear what this post means.
He was not American until age 16. He COULD HAVE BEEN right after birth. But he wasn’t.
issued Consular Report of Birth Abroad, which is his legal proof of US Citizenship, or he doesn’t. Would appear his parents never applied for it....making Cruz a bonafide Canadian.
He appears to have gotten it at 16 so he could get a USA passport for a school trip. His mother probably had to jump through hoops at that time, maybe even travel to Canada.
Cruz thought he was American all that time, but his mother never filed for him. So he was not, officially, American for his first 16 years.
Did you happen to see this particular comment? This is evidence of what a lot of us said happened in regards to the 1790 and 1795 naturalization acts.
Usage of the "Natural Born Citizen" verbiage in the 1790 act was simply a mistake, which Congress realized and rectified in the 1795 act.
The Children of naturalized aliens do not go through a process either, but they are still naturalized.
Unlike passports, these reports were developed to effectuate the naturalization laws, and they continue to serve the role of identifying persons who need not be naturalized to obtain U. S. citizenship. The regulation of these reports does not fall within the President’s foreign affairs powers, but within Congress’ enumerated powers under the Naturalization and Necessary and Proper Clauses. (emphasis added)Note the careful logic. CRBAs put into effect the naturalization laws, which are in turn an expression, among other things, of the Congressional power to legislate regarding naturalization. But what do they do? They do not naturalize! They rather identify persons who do not need naturalization, i.e., those born naturally into their citizenship. Yet all this happens in a naturalization statute, as it must.
State your authority. I can make up law out of my head too. I haven’t found it very useful in the practice of law.
Peace,
SR
I have looked into the mistake theory. First, I note that Congress is still credited with publishing the law it meant to publish, and any claim of error must come with the highest standard of proof. Pinckney McElwee’s article makes a number of statements, including the key testimony of Madison alleging mistake, without citation to any documentation. We cannot dislodge published law on an undocumented and unreviewable interpretation.
Furthermore, there is a credibility issue. Madison was involved in the creation of the 1790 Act as well. Did he have a brain fart on the first pass? Or did he have some sort of “conversion” on the issue in the five years intervening? Or does McElwee fail to provide a citation because he cannot back up his claim with the actual words that were recorded?
Peace,
SR
> In summary then, the law is clear, and Justice Thomas is reading it exactly right in Zivotofsky (2015). The binary categories (i.e., mutually exclusive) are NOT statute versus NBC, but citizen at birth versus naturalized. And it is no misstep by Thomas; it is an integral part of a larger argument about the separation of powers
I suggest that you read the statute cited. (8 U. S. C. § 1401(c),(d),(g))
Your post is premised on dicta in the dissent.
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.