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

To: DiogenesLamp; taxcontrol
You are advocating a theory that leaves the meaning permanently open ended. In other words, it means whatever congress says it means. That is nonsense. It has a fixed meaning that was understood in 1787 and cannot be changed by Congress by passing a law.

And that meaning was revealed when in 1790, George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, and the Congress, many of whom helped produce the Constitution just 3 years earlier, decided to pass and sign the Naturalization Law of 1790 in which they used the expression "natural born citizen" to describe a child born overseas to US citizen parents.

That is a fact. It is an irreversible fact. The Founders used natural born citizen to describe a born overseas citizen.

One off the cuff remark many make at this information is that Congress repealed the 1790 law and replaced it with the 1795 law. First, that has nothing to do with the fact that Congress saw fit to use the term "natural born citizen" to describe a "born overseas citizen".

Second, Most laws that are replaced are repealed. The replacement was much more lengthy and detailed.

Significantly, though, when Congress was making the initial laws of the land, when they had to be concise, precise, and get right to the most important issues, they recognized bloodline citizenship as natural born citizenship.

116 posted on 08/19/2013 12:05:37 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies ]


To: xzins
And that meaning was revealed when in 1790, George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, and the Congress, many of whom helped produce the Constitution just 3 years earlier, decided to pass and sign the Naturalization Law of 1790 in which they used the expression "natural born citizen" to describe a child born overseas to US citizen parents.

Your point would be correct if the Naturalization Law of 1790 used the word *are* instead of "Shall be considered as".

That is a fact. It is an irreversible fact. The Founders used natural born citizen to describe a born overseas citizen.

Yes, as something to compare this newly created class of citizen with. Once again, "naturalization " is to make "like natural. " It's not the same thing as being natural.

Significantly, though, when Congress was making the initial laws of the land, when they had to be concise, precise, and get right to the most important issues, they recognized bloodline citizenship as natural born citizenship.

But they only recognized the bloodline of the FATHER. The citizenship of the mother was irrelevant prior to marriage because Women automatically became citizens of their husband's country when they married.

Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

Dual citizenship didn't exist until 1922. Prior to that, both parents were always the same nationality.

135 posted on 08/19/2013 1:52:24 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

To: xzins

“That is a fact. It is an irreversible fact. The Founders used natural born citizen to describe a born overseas citizen.”

No, that is a fictitious misrepresentation of the actual quotation in the 1790 Act of Congress. Congress actually wrote the Act to say the person born abroad was to be considered as a natural born citizen for the purposes of that very naturalization legislation. The legislative act did not say the persons were actual natural born citizens. The legislative act only said the persons were to be regarded for purposes of determining naturalization as if they possessed the same rights regarding naturalization and lack of need therefor as if they were natural born citizens who require no naturalization procedure. After Congress realized the natural born citizen wording produced undesirable results, Congress changed the wording to citizen in place of natural born citizens, and Congress took extensive efforts in additional provisions to limit additional avenues for foreign influence to abuse the naturalization procedures. This example serves to reinforce the definition of natural born citizen as excluding persons born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign.


197 posted on 08/20/2013 11:57:47 AM PDT by WhiskeyX ( provides a system for registering complaints about unfair broadcasters and the ability to request a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | 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