[calenel wrote:...
1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.
1795 Act of January 29, 1795. Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415. (Same general provisions as above).
1802 Act of April 14, 1802. Section 4, 2 Stat. 153, 144. (Same general provisions as above).
1855 Act of February 10, 1855. Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.
“All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.”...]
TO calenel, I have been more than a little lazy in not having found the actual verbiage of the 1795 act which Donofrio has cited often enough (and thus I’ve ascribed, as he’s stated it enough and with emphasis), that what you refer to as generally referring to 1790 had in fact DROPPED “NATURAL BORN” in near-same reference. Donofrio is certainly aware of the later acts you cite and here you’ve even so shown the term “natural born” has not re-appeared.
I agree with Donofrio’s deduction (and someone please send me the exact 1795 ref if convenient) that the excising of the phrase in such near-same usage in near-same time frame by near-same legislators shows full intent and indeed constitutes full conscious act of elimination of “natural born” from the 1790 passage.
P.A. Madison (whoever this is and who cares) has quite rightly shown the War of 1812 was essentially fought over British application of its nefarious claim upon so-called “British” (first and one must assume some SECOND generation ex-colonials, looking at this from the Limey claim) sons in enforced conscription of some 6000 in the naval blockade that triggered the war. It can be thus assumed the issue was considered settled with the last act prior to the war and did not need to be repeated in any act subsequent.
Donofrio is correct here. I see it as the fulcrum of his case.
“1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.
‘And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States’.”
Was not Obama’s father a resident of the U.S., given that he was here legally before Obama was born? I don’t see how this definition is substantially different from the 14th amendment’s definition.
I maybe muddied the waters a bit on tossing in War of 1812 as it didn’t settle “natural born” but rather was simple, direct refutation of the British claim, and affirmation of then very clear definition of what I’ll call at minimum: regular American citizenry. That some of these enforced conscripts were eligible to become president being born at time of Constitution’s ratification was the LONE further permission beyond “natural born”.
I simply want to underscore Donofrio’s (and Madison’s) point that reverse application of the British claim is very much in play in both what the founders intended to counter with further test of ArtII Sec 1 AND the failure of Bam Bam to pass the same test. British subjects of any “political” education such as Bam Bam’s (known) papa should have known better. The “crown” makes its stinking “realm” a possibilty and we have to remove ourselves by a generation from the pestilence thanks to “Mother England” stench. Sorry, thems the rules.
It has been acknowledged that the term 'natural born' was dropped in the 1795 law. But, tell me, what is the difference between 'natural born' and 'born...citizens'? My view, based on the dictionary definition of 'natural born' ('having a quality or status from birth') is that there is no difference.
To clarify, I cite the 1790 statute to refute the 'original intent' argument, as that 'natural born citizens' statute was written by a Congress that included FFs and signed by Washington (that guy on the dollar) (well, most of the time - I have a Tedy Bruschi dollar, too).
"P.A. Madison (whoever this is and who cares) has quite rightly shown the War of 1812 was essentially fought over British application of its nefarious claim upon so-called “British” (first and one must assume some SECOND generation ex-colonials, looking at this from the Limey claim) sons in enforced conscription of some 6000 in the naval blockade that triggered the war. It can be thus assumed the issue was considered settled with the last act prior to the war and did not need to be repeated in any act subsequent."
Who P.A. Madison is is relevant as he is being repeatedly cited as an expert, yet, we know nothing about him or his credentials, and I have previously illustrated flaws in his arguments on this very thread. Suppose I were to post my analysis on a site and sign my articles 'P.I.Jefferson' and some of the FReepers on this (and other) threads were to cite my site, perhaps even me, would that in and of itself validate my position on the topic? Just because it is on the internet does not make it the truth.
We are debating an idea that is fundamental to Donofrio's case, that there is a class of citizen 'born a citizen but not a natural born citizen'. I find this to be a serious - read fatal - flaw in Donofrio's case as there is no basis in Law or in the COTUS to support this argument. People who WANT it to be true have repeated their convoluted arguments ad nauseam, apparently believing that enough repetition will MAKE it true. It won't. When someone shows me I am wrong I will acknowledge it. I have, on this very topic, as my original position was that the question of Obama's citizenship was silly. But until there is some legitimate evidence that I am wrong, and not just the alternation of words that are synonymous, I will maintain that it is a distinction without a difference.
One more point: Since the British considered those 6000 impressed persons to be British subjects, does that mean they could not be considered 'natural born' and thus be ineligible to be President, even if they were born, say, in 1796 in, oh, Philadelphia? Or does that illustrate why the view of any other country as to an individual's citizenship is irrelevant to the US?