Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DannyTN
1) So what does this mean for the California Case?

Nothing. The two are not related.

2) Are any of Orly's plantiff's significantly different? Does any of hers have actual orders that haven't been rescinded?

Not in California. She had that Captain in the Rhodes case who's orders weren't rescinded and who reported for duty about the time the judge dismissed the case.

What impact would the equal Rights Amendment have if the 1790 definition holds? Would the equal right amendment retroactively allow the Mother to pass "Natural Born" citizenry even though under age given the laws at the time?

The 1790 Naturalization law only defined natural-born citizen in the case of a child born overseas to two U.S. citizen parents. Citizenship of those born in the U.S. wasn't addressed. The Equal Rights Amendment, even had it been passed, would not have impacted citizenship laws.

50 posted on 10/21/2009 10:07:40 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur

El Gato pointed out to me that the “Natural Born” wording was repealed in 1795. So apparently the 1790 law shouldn’t come into play at all.


55 posted on 10/21/2009 10:14:44 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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