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

To: Cboldt; BuckeyeTexan; CodeToad; txrangerette
FWIW, I disagree with xzins. I believe the founders intended the term "natural born citizen" to have independent fixed meaning - independent of statute, that is. "Rules for naturalization" play for people who are not natural born citizens, and Congress was expressly granted the power to open and close the gate of naturalization.

I do not believe that the Founders wrote the Constitution with the intent that the nation would come back to amend the constitution in order to define "natural born citizen." That would have been a silly trick. If they'd wanted it defined constitutionally, they would have defined it in the text and would not have PLANNED for some future Congress to pass it as an amendment.

That does not mean it cannot be defined by an amendment. I have no problem with it being defined by an amendment. I've not said that I do.

What I have said is that Congress has been given sufficient authority to define it by statute, and they have, although not directly using those words. They have simply established as many have said, who requires naturalization and who does not. Those who do not are born citizens and are eligible to the presidency. (I think that Buckeye, in good faith, is stating that since the definition of blood descent is by statute that that makes those "by birth" citizens, statutory citizens. In one sense, all of us are, but I do understand what he's saying. He's simply saying they have to meet certain requirements for their "by birth" citizenship to be proven. I would say they are automatically "by birth" citizens and the requirements are to acknowledge what they already are.)

567 posted on 10/30/2013 1:19:21 PM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies ]


To: xzins; Cboldt; CodeToad; txrangerette

I’ll spell out what I mean so it’s clear.

Those born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens at birth by constitutional declaration (14A). Such citizens do not NEED a Congressional statute to affirm or declare their citizenship status. (They happen to have an affirming statute but do not actually need it.) Furthermore, their citizenship cannot be revoked by Congressional statute because the Constitution is supreme and Congress cannot override it.

Everyone else who obtains citizenship at birth does so through a Congressional statute. In fact, they NEED a Congressional statute to give them citizenship because the Constitution (14A) does not explicitly grant citizenship to them. Since their citizenship is derived solely through Congressional statute, Congress may revoke or modify their citizenship status by revising statutory law.


671 posted on 10/30/2013 9:17:06 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | 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