Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: JayGalt; LucyT

Good catch. Why did this happen?


3 posted on 04/10/2016 4:06:38 PM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: thecodont; xzins
xzins had posted the original in 2013.

I had found the section independently a month or so ago. When I looked for it to post for someone last night I could find it nowhere.

Today I found the trail at Wikipedia, xzins and a blog http://pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/

This is a repost of xzins post which contains the fullest copy of the original I have been able to find.

The very beginning of that section explains that citizenship is by geography or by bloodline. That discussion on bloodline is here in 7 FAM 1131.
Specifically, it says about the presidency:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that ―No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.‖

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The ―Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization‖, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, ―...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.‖

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.

In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes

As you can see, the pamphlet concludes that a statuatory natural born citizen is not necessarily a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Note first that it does not say: "such a person is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

Note second that in arguing "not necessarily" that the pam recognizes that a count-argument can forcefully be made that the person is a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Also note that saying "does not necessarily imply" indicates that the record does "seem to imply". Otherwise, the formulation "does not necessarily imply" would not be used. The forumulation would be: "does seem to imply that the citizen is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

So, the bottom line is that bloodline citizenship has been called "natural born citizenship" by no less than the Founding Congress and signed by President George Washington.

9 posted on 04/10/2016 4:14:18 PM PDT by JayGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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