Posted on 03/09/2021 7:25:08 AM PST by GQuagmire
I daresay you cannot come up with a single law defining "natural born citizen" from that time period.
If you understood what the founders meant when they referred to "natural law", you would know that making a law regarding "natural born citizen" is a contradiction in terms.
I don't need to do that. Your position appears to be "whatever it's definition, it can be redefined by later statute" and that is simply incorrect on the face of it.
If you believe that subsequent laws can change the meaning of legal terms of art used by the US Constitution, I don't see where we have any basis for an exchange of thoughts on the matter.
I see the constitution as rock solid, only changeable by amendment, not as a "living constitution" that can be changed by simply reinterpreting what words mean.
I can show a reasonable person where the term "natural born citizen" came from, but they have to be willing to look.
I certainly missed the part where it said "natural born citizen." That is not in the 14th amendment at all.
Not even the Union officers would have bought into the idea of slaves being natural citizens when they were born, from a law that didn't happen until years after their birth.
Laws do not reverse cause and effect. Time flow is maintained as linear. You cannot be retroactively "natural born."
This makes as much sense as saying a man can become a woman.
Apparently not. It's a law which specifies who do not need to be naturalized because they're citizens at birth, AKA natural-born citizens.
Let me toss this out here just to see what you think of it.
It supports what I've been saying all along. The Constitution identifies two forms of citizenship - natural-born and naturalized. If you are not one then you're the other.
Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Our natural born citizens are the Posterity of We the People.
"Ourselves" are "We the People," the citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the citizen children of citizen parents.
-PJ
You mean you can't.
Your position appears to be "whatever it's definition, it can be redefined by later statute" and that is simply incorrect on the face of it.
How can statute redefine it if it wasn't defined in the Constitution in the first place? Since the Constitution doesn't then statutes have to define it, for the purpose of identifying those who need to acquire citizenship through naturalization from those who acquire citizenship at birth, AKA natural-born citizens.
If you believe that subsequent laws can change the meaning of legal terms of art used by the US Constitution, I don't see where we have any basis for an exchange of thoughts on the matter.
And when there is no clear single definition of the term to begin with? You yourself mentioned the question of jus soli vs. jus sanguinus. Since the Constitution doesn't define it then Congress must, which they have through legislation over the years.
I see the constitution as rock solid, only changeable by amendment, not as a "living constitution" that can be changed by simply reinterpreting what words mean.
Do you now?
I can show a reasonable person where the term "natural born citizen" came from, but they have to be willing to look.
Ah if only the founders had included your opinion as the definition of natural-born citizen in the Constitution.
It's right there, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." Those not naturalized are natural-born since those are the only two types of citizenship identified by the Constitution.
Not even the Union officers would have bought into the idea of slaves being natural citizens when they were born, from a law that didn't happen until years after their birth.
I wasn't aware that it was their call.
Again, a naturalization law that says who doesn't need to be naturalized?
It supports what I've been saying all along. The Constitution identifies two forms of citizenship - natural-born and naturalized. If you are not one then you're the other.
Astonishing. Absolutely astonishing.
I've seen this once before. At a hypnotism show decades ago, the hypnotist hypnotized a man into forgetting the number "7", and then had him count to ten. Everyone laughed when he went "5,6,8,9,10."
You read that paragraph and somehow couldn't see the one thing that absolutely and blatantly contradicted your position. You went straight to the "two forms of citizenship" thing, and completely missed "can only be a naturalized citizen."
Bravo. Well done.
Well the Naturalization Act of 1790 said that "...children of citizens of the United States, that may be born across the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." Is that defining natural-born citizen? Or is that just identifying those people as natural-born citizens?
If you understood what the founders meant when they referred to "natural law", you would know that making a law regarding "natural born citizen" is a contradiction in terms.
Except that the founders are dead, they didn't include their definition of natural-born citizen in the Constitution, so all we have is your opinion on what they meant.
If you want to call it that. To me it's a law which is part of 8 U.S. Code I that identifies those who do not need to be naturalized. 8 U.S. Code II identifies how those acquire their citizenship through naturalization do so. Anyone not identified in 8 U.S. Code I has to resort to the laws in 8 U.S. Code II. Archie is covered in Code I.
Astonishing. Absolutely astonishing.
Lightbulb go on again?
"Defined in the Constitution" is a dodge. Almost nothing is "defined" *IN* the constitution. It is defined elsewhere, but the point remains, whatever is it's definition, you seem to think it can be changed by statute.
If you think Constitutional terms of art can be redefined by congressional legislation, then you and I have a very different understanding of what the Constitution is.
Since the Constitution doesn't then statutes have to define it,
I very greatly doubt that every single word used in the US Constitution is defined by statute. I am of the opinion that vast majority of the words and terms used in the US constitution are defined by common acceptance and various other written works of the time.
And when there is no clear single definition of the term to begin with?
I think there is a very clear single definition of the term, but it is not in William Rawle's "A view of the Constitution." That is where the nation was misled.
Since the Constitution doesn't define it then Congress must, which they have through legislation over the years.
They cannot retroactively "define" a word which has already been written down with an understood meaning in 1787.
Ah if only the founders had included your opinion as the definition of natural-born citizen in the Constitution.
They didn't put very many "definitions" in the Constitution. The people of that era understood the vernacular they used, and saw no need to define words in common usage at the time.
"Treason" is the only term which I remember is defined in the Constitution.
The proper word used in English common law is "subject." I note that they didn't use the word "subject".
Blimey, me eyes must be going out, I still don't see the words "natural born citizen" in there anywhere.
Those not naturalized are natural-born since those are the only two types of citizenship identified by the Constitution.
This is true, but those who gain their citizenship by the 14th amendment are "naturalized", and therefore are not "natural born citizens."
The 14th amendment gives citizenship to people who would not have it naturally.
I wasn't aware that it was their call.
Certainly the 14th amendment would not have passed without their guns pointing at people.
The McCain thing was another liberal lie. I was not a big fan of him, be he was most assuredly eligible to be president.
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth this eligibility requirement in question for serving as president of the United States:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President.
McCain was born to two citizen parents and he was born on August 29, 1936, at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, a US military reservation. It is considered US soil. A whole lot different than the Obama situation and not the same as Cruz who qualified as a citizen because they had lived in Canada shorter than the requirement to forfeit. Eleanor Wilson Cruz was born in Wilmington, Delaware so she was a US citizen.
Obama was a completely different story and would take me an hour to lay it out. He’s not worth my time.
wy69
In 35 years, if Archie get smart (since his parents aren’t the brightest people on earth, I hope he got brains and common sense to be a Trumpet) I hope America will be around.
Since neither one of her parents were US citizens at the time she was born in California, how was Kamala Harris able to run for and hold the office of Vice President?
It hasn't been since 2008.
Patent applications mailed to the Patent Office are considered as received in the Patent Office the instant they are delivered to the Post Office as Express Mail. The application isn't actually in the patent office, but as a matter of legal definition, they are considered as if they are. 37 CFR 1.6
For purposes of some laws, persons are considered children until they reach the age of 26. Under US Tax code, some exchanges (e.g., barter) are considered as money received.
I view the Naturalization Act of 1790 as a clear statement as far as the drafters of the legislation were concerned, that children of citizens of the United States, that may be born across the sea, or outside the limits of the United States are NOT natural born citizens, but "we will consider them as if they are."
By your standard, a statute that said "Persons born of British royalty shall be considered as natural born citizens" is not unconstitutional, because the constitution give Congress the power to define who needs to be naturalized, and it declared that persons born of British royalty do not need to be naturalized. Therefore, since they do not need to be naturalized (a power of Congress) they are natural born citizens. There can be no other possibility.
Birthers are a whole lot of fun.
Idiot...
You tell me to not put forth a false premise and then you turn around and in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE, put forth a false claim.
1) The whole Constitution is in play - ALL OF IT. You do not get to cherry pick out one word, one clause or even one section. The Constitution establishes and specifically enumerates Congress with the authority over all rules of naturalization.
2) Congress expresses and exercises it’s rule making authority via laws. Congress exercised it’s authority in the very first Congress and has continued to do so since then by passing laws.
3) The current set of rules are codified in Title 8 section 1401 and establishes those that are recognized as citizens from birth and do not need to be naturalized - i.e. naturally born as citizens or a natural born citizen
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.