Posted on 01/09/2016 10:58:04 AM PST by sunrise_sunset
1790 Naturalization Act:
"..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..."
1795 Naturalization Act:
"...the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States..."
They “considered” it in 1790, but made the right correction in 1795.
So now find any law where NBC is defined. Also it is a perilous task to Devine in law from what is not stated. That fr is following Geraldo Rivera logic is also sad
Doesn’t change the requirements for President as stated in the Constitution at the time of ratification.
I would go with the definition as it was understood at the time the Constitution was ratified. Subsequently changing the meaning of a term should not change the intent of the original document.
When conservative judges are looking for original intent of the Founders they will look to the first legislation, the Naturalization Act of 1790 not to the 1795 Act. The Naturalization Act of 1795 was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1798.
Can a citizenship status which is by it’s very nature not naturalized, be naturalized by an Act?
You guys amuse me.
So what?
You don’t SAY this, but one might conclude you think the word going from “natural born” to simply “citizen” somehow means when an American citizen woman drops a baby overseas he or she is by law forbidden to run for POTUS.
If you mean that, have the guts to assert it. If you don’t mean that, please assert it. But then you would confront the problem of WHY are you bothering with this inanity.
“Oh the games people play now, every night and every day now, never meaning what they say now, never saying what they mean.”
This isn’t a game, but if it were, Senator Ted Cruz is holding all of the high cards in this matter and NOTHING will ever come of the invented controversy despite any and all efforts to the contrary.
Scholars are on Ted’s side.
And no, he won’t be derailed by some deranged individual’s lawsuit nor some democrat hack on the Bench somewhere trying to make legal soup out of a nothing burger.
He will, if necessary, make legal and Constitutional HASH out of them, instead.
Meanwhile, Jim Robinson and Mark Levin are still looking good from when they long ago declared that Ted Cruz is qualified to be POTUS.
Do the 1790 and 1796 naturalization acts supersede current US codified law...?
That current law says Cruz is eligible...
The rest is moot and navel gazing...at best...
1795 Naturalization Act:
"...the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States..."
Oh and they took out "that may be born beyond the sea" Who there must be some deep heavy reason for this too! What do you think of the reason for this? Redundancy?
If the understanding that citizens born abroad to us citizens have always been natural-born, then why was there an issue with John McCain being born in the Panama Canal Zone.
Statutes cannot amend the Constitution.
Canada and Mexico?
Exactly! CONGRESS CANNOT CHANGE THE MEANING OF A SINGLE WORD IN THE CONSTITUTION. So no act of Congress means anything with regard to NBC.
Since it omitted the phrase, it didn’t redefine it.
According to the Constitution, it can.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4:
[The Congress shall have Power] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
For all the debate over just who is and is not a natural born citizen, no one has ever claimed that naturalized citizens are. The Legislature has Constitutional authority over naturalization.
I have never for one second believed that a person could be born in a foreign country and still run for president. Born a citizen is not the same as natural born citizen. IF IT WAS THERE IS NO REASON FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Alas, it’s there.. isn’t it?
One clause of the Constitution cannot overrule another.
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.