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

Skip to comments.

Our First And Third Congress Defined Natural Born Citizen
Nationality Act of 1790-1795 ^ | January 8th, 2016 | Uncle Sham

Posted on 01/08/2016 6:52:06 PM PST by Uncle Sham

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 next last
To: dschapin
Does anyone really believe the founders would consider say an anchor baby with Chinese parents a natural born citizen that would be eligible to serve as POTUS? What about the children of all the trophy wives living in the middle east or Russia are those all natural born citizens and also eligible to serve as POTUS?

Some adult female gets infatuated with say an ISIS fighter and goes to Syria, gets knocked up and has a child. That child lives with his dad until he is an adult then the child comes to the USA and that child is a NBC and can run for president? This scenario is exactly why the founders put the NBC clause into the Constitution. Void it and you or your children will regret it.

121 posted on 01/09/2016 4:42:20 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: trebb
-- what is the functional difference between being deemed Natural Born and being considered as natural Born? --

The functional difference is the same. Both terms create a legal fiction. If Valdimir Putin is deemed to be a natural born citizen of the US, then as a matter of legal function, he is a NBC.

122 posted on 01/09/2016 4:47:48 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: freedomjusticeruleoflaw
" There is only one condition of citizenship that is universally recognized and therefore never requires a statute of any kind: born on the soil, of two citizen parents. Every other condition requires statutes to establish citizenship. Natural-born seems pretty simple to reckon from that simple methodology."

It is mind boggling that so many here do not get that. Natural Born Citizen: born on soil, two citizen parents.

123 posted on 01/09/2016 4:52:32 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: dschapin

for the sake of argument, argue this......

the word is citizens. Cruz is born of only one citizen

further “shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: “ which seems to catch both Obama and Cruz if the fathers had never resided in the US prior to the birth.

so it can be argued on two points that Cruz is not natural born


124 posted on 01/09/2016 4:53:40 AM PST by bert ((K.E.; N.P.; GOPc;+12, 73, ....carson is the kinder gentler trump.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
Trump supporters desperation to find anything on Ted Cruz to bring him down.

And Cruz supporters are willing to trash the Constitution in order to see Cruz elected POTUS.

125 posted on 01/09/2016 4:59:42 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: bert

Are you unaware that Cruz’s father did reside in the US prior to Ted’s birth?


126 posted on 01/09/2016 5:03:21 AM PST by don-o (I am Kenneth Carlisle - Waco 5/17/15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: don-o

no...... i was making a hypothetical argument

That would appear to resolve the issue in his favor


127 posted on 01/09/2016 5:05:35 AM PST by bert ((K.E.; N.P.; GOPc;+12, 73, ....carson is the kinder gentler trump.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
The functional difference is the same. Both terms create a legal fiction. If Valdimir Putin is deemed to be a natural born citizen of the US, then as a matter of legal function, he is a NBC.

??????

Wow - a real stretch to try to justify/validate a false opinion. In order to be deemed such, he would have had to met the qualifications used in the determination.

Some folks just can't allow that they, or their arguments, might be a bit off the track...

Do something useful...

Now for a short public service announcement to all on FR:
We need to ensure we don't get another Obama-like America Hater as the next President.
The best way to ensure that is to actively support a candidate as the next President.
I prefer Cruz and my money goes to his campaign, hence the Cruz link. If you like someone else, donate to him/her (find your own link to do it) and if you use FR and don't donate, then please don't complain about the welfare leeches or those who have Obama Phones because, functionally, you are no different than any other who enjoys the fruits of others' work for your own benefit.

PS - If you are one of those who cannot afford even a small donation to FR or a candidate, God Bless and happy FReeping!.....

GO CRUZ!! Keep it up Trump!!

Donate to FR

Donate to Cruz

Donate to FR

128 posted on 01/09/2016 5:44:31 AM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
You need to reconsider your position on TED CRUZ.
But on the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF, you're correct.

The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it , too ( even though it DOES NOT APPLY) !

As Hans von Spakovsky wrote in his Commentary "An Un-Naturally Born Non-Controversy":
129 posted on 01/09/2016 5:58:23 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trebb
-- In order to be deemed such, he would have had to met the qualifications used in the determination. --

You miss the point. The act of deeming establishes a legal fiction. If the law deems him to meet, then the law will treat his as though he meets, even if he doesn't, in fact, meet the qualifications. That's the legal function of "deeming" or "to be considered as."

You are reading a legal statute, use the tools of statutory construction.

Somebody asked what the functional difference was, between deeming and "be considered as," and in statutory construction, there is no difference.

There is plenty of material on the subject, in general. See for example, Deem Definition - Duhaime's Law Dictionary. I'm not saying this is the only use of the word "deem," but it's the use associated with "shall be considered as."

In The Queen (R) v Norfolk County, an 1891 case, Justice Cave wrote a judgment which contained a classic snippet of legalese:

"When you talk of a thing being deemed to be something, you do not mean to say that it is that which it is to be deemed to be. It is rather an admission that it is not what it is to be deemed to be, and that, notwithstanding it is not that particular thing, nevertheless it is to be deemed to be that thing."


130 posted on 01/09/2016 6:03:36 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"Because citizen is natural born. There was no reason to amend the constitution."

If this is so, please explain the repeated references to "natural born citizenship" made by folks who should know what they were talking about such as John Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment, as well as those who argued over the natural born citizenship of Chester Arthur, as well as the Authors of Senate Resolution 511 which conferred natural born citizenship on John McCain.

If the term was eliminated as you imply back in 1795, how then does it still survive discussion? As far as I can see, it must still be in use and have some sort of legal attachment. The fact that it still exist in the Constitution should count for something.

Your claim that the change was made in order to eliminate confusion makes sense only if they had changed the description in the eligibility requirements as well. Do you have a source to back your claim? If so, can you please provide it.

131 posted on 01/09/2016 6:10:09 AM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Radix

The post that I was responding to stated it was defined in the Constitution. I asked to show it.


132 posted on 01/09/2016 6:12:12 AM PST by PJBankard (It is better to be thought an idiot than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: BigEdLB

Gotcha. Trump is only helping a brother (Cruz) out by raising issues that might serve to derail his competition’s campaign. Because that’s the kind of guy Trump is.

Do you really believe that crap?


133 posted on 01/09/2016 6:12:21 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

Thank you. Like I said in an earlier post, I like Ted Cruz, but him and Obama are setting a precedence that contradicts what the founders wanted.


134 posted on 01/09/2016 6:14:59 AM PST by PJBankard (It is better to be thought an idiot than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I'm not saying this is the only use of the word "deem," but it's the use associated with "shall be considered as."

I guess we won't be in accord with who has actually missed the point - the language was "shall be considered" and the word "shall" indicates an absolute in legalese. Having spent 39 years in and with the military, and having been responsible for following all the relevant Regulations/Instructions, the word "shall" leaves no wriggle room - it must be considered (deemed) a direct order vs. something that one has discretion to interpret differently.

I can appreciate that folks would have opinions but we're barking up the wrong tree trying to find some way to make our most conservative option ineligible by playing our own word games (ala "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is").

135 posted on 01/09/2016 6:21:10 AM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
So, according to your opinion, born anywhere to one citizen parent qualifies as being a citizen and that in 1795, Congress simply removed the term natural born citizen from the Act because it meant the same thing as citizen. Is this correct?

My problem with this is that the term natural born citizen was removed from the description of this condition in the Act of 1795 yet apparently remained untouched in the Constitution.

136 posted on 01/09/2016 6:29:14 AM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: trebb
I agree with your application of the word "shall." But the phrase in play in the 1790 statute is "shall be considered."

I also agree that the function is mandatory. The legal fiction actually works, in law.

What I disagree with is the contention that "shall be considered to be" is the same as "[really] is."

-- I can appreciate that folks would have opinions but we're barking up the wrong tree trying to find some way to make our most conservative option ineligible --

Nothing we say in this chatroom will have any effect at all on how the question of NBC will be decided, if it gets the point of needing to be decided. The overwhelming weight of rhetoric out in public is that Cruz is a NBC. No court is going to touch the issue on the substance, and if Cruz wins the electoral vote, Congress will declare him eligible, even if he is not, in fact, eligible. He'll be deemed eligible.

137 posted on 01/09/2016 6:30:00 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

What is your take on this?


138 posted on 01/09/2016 6:39:44 AM PST by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
What I disagree with is the contention that "shall be considered to be" is the same as "[really] is."

I believe that the language was deliberate to say that while there may be a couple different sets of circumstances, which will be delineated by "is" and "shall be considered", the functional reality is the same.

Many disagree, as is their right (like a runner crossing home plate on his feet or reaching it by sliding with out actually crossing it, and not being tagged out before the event, is deemed to have scored the run). Different circumstances but same functional outcome.

Perhaps a bit simplified and "apples to oranges" but still functionally relevant as an example.

Nothing says that legalese cannot consider two events, that it decides to differentiate between, to be/meet the same end condition.

If there were enforceable legal conditions showing Cruz to be ineligible, one must assume it would have been out there instead of being debated on FR or by some Dem that decided to make noise about it (or Trump mentioning it as a response to a reporter who was the one who actually brought it up - many who want Cruz to fail will not hesitate to try to take Trump out if Cruz falls and vice-versa.

139 posted on 01/09/2016 6:41:17 AM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham
And the children of CITIZENS of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens

There is no implication that both parents must be citizens. "Children" is plural and "parents" is plural. I could just as easily claim that the parents must have more than one child before qualifying for citizenship.

140 posted on 01/09/2016 6:45:05 AM PST by BfloGuy ( Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 next last

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.

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