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

To: Oklahoma
-- Common law is secondary and subordinate to statutory law. --

Which brings us right back to your initial contention, natural born [citizenship is] defined by statutes made laws by congress.

Is there any restriction on Congress, or can it theoretically pass an unconstitutional "definition of NBC" law?

By way of hypothetical example, if Congress passed a statute saying Vladimir Putin was an NBC, would that be constitutional? If you view that as ex post facto or naturalization, not natural, then hypothesize Congress decides to be friendly with Mexico, and grants statutory citizenship to persons born in Mexico, to Mexican parents. I know, that's a reach (now, maybe not a generation from now), but we need some hook to debate from.

If there is a restriction on NBC, what is it, and where does it come from? By your terms of this debate, you can't resort to common law, because statutory law is superior.

185 posted on 01/09/2016 7:18:27 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies ]


To: Oklahoma
Just to make the hypothetical a little more palatable, have it follow the pattern of Ireland, where the grandchild of an Irish citizen is born with a right to claim Irish citizenship, regardless of where they were born, and regardless of the citizenship of the grandchild's parents at the time the grandchild is born.

Would that grandchild (who is without a doubt a citizen of the US, Congress certainly has that power) be an NBC, assuming Congress passes a law that says that grandchild is born a US citizen.

190 posted on 01/09/2016 7:33:04 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | 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