Posted on 03/01/2009 8:22:44 AM PST by STARWISE
It has been my position, from the beginning, in EVERY COLB/Citizenship thread, to prove that there are SEVERAL ways to gain citizenship.
I have at least proven that point, as some of the obama bots are not shooting that same point back at me.
In 1790 they defined natural born citizenship, or more properly added to that definition. But that statute was repleaced five years later. That 1795 statute, and every one since then has not had the term "natural born" in it.
So no, it doesn't work that way.
This is speculation, as I've not researched the 1795 law, but I wonder if they realized that they have no power to define a Constitutional term, and so did not repeat their error. It has been observed, by others, that the passage and ratification of the 10th amendment occurred between the passage of those two laws. That *may* have made them realise they had overstepped their bounds. They used to consider things like that.
No, it does not. It does not remove Congress's power to create naturalization laws, or laws on who is a natural born citizen.
Yeah? Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, when did Congress ever have the power to define who was a natural born citizen? And when did they do so between the 1795 Act and the Fourteenth Amendment?
From the time of the ratification of the Constitution to this day. The court didn't strike down the 1790 law as unconstitutional it was just repealed by later legislation. Since the Court didn't rule that it, and hasn't struck down the Immigration and Nationality Law of 1952 or the Immigration and Nationality Law of 1965 or any of the Nationality laws that Congress has passed since then, then the assumption is that they're all Constitutional. And if Congress passes a law that people born overseas under specific circumstances are natural born citizens then that means they are.
Then why was it changed? And why did the 1795 Act include children born outside the US to non-US citizens to be of the same class of citizen as those born outside the US to US citizens provided that their parents became naturalized citizens prior to their 21st birthday?
I'm not aware of any explanation why Congress passed that law, or any subsequent laws.
Are you saying that children born outside the US to parents who were not US citizens at the time of their birth, are "natural born citizens" as long as their parents become US citizens before they turn 21?
Not according to current law, no. However, children born in the U.S. are natural born U.S. citizens regardless of their parents nationality. With few specific exceptions.
Nothing in the Constitution forbidding it? No no, you obviously don't understand how the Constitution works. The way our Constitution works is that Congress can only do that which it is specifically empowered to do by the Constitution.
No, I don't think you understand how it works. I would refer you the Chief Justice Marshall's decision in McCulloch v. Maryland.
You might want to take a peek at that li'l ol' Tenth Amendment for a refresher on this rather fundamental principle of our federal government.
Sure. Point me to where the 10th Amendment uses the word 'specific'. The 10th Amendment merely says that those powers not reserved to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states. The power to establish laws pertaining to naturalization and citizenship are powers reserved to the United States.
And then you can try and explain to me where the Constitution empowers Congress to define citizenship of the United States as anything other than being born IN the United States, or to be naturalized as a United States citizen.
You'll have to point out where the Constitution specifies that limitation - naturalized OR born in the U.S. - because I don't see where the Constitution defines either term.
That does not make it a "copy of an original document", just a copy of some of the contents of the original certificate, as per section (a). You said it was a copy of the Certification, it's not, it's a copy of part of the contents thereof.
IOW, it is an abstract.
Then try this one. Title 3, Chapter 1, Act 301. I think you'll find the wording to be the same.
Was this an honest mistake and you didn't know that the INA had been changed since 1952, or was it intentional?
Neither.
Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the statute that was on the books in 1961, states:
No. There is on Section 301(a)(7). There is a Section 301(g) which reads:
"a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;"
If you don't believe my site is accurate then point me to what you believe is the correct site with the language of the entire act.
Again, square this with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Nothing in the 14th Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution prevents it. If so, then point to the Supreme Court decision which strikes it down.
???? Could you rephrase that? I haven't a clue what you mean. Maybe I'm just tired.
It has been my position, from the beginning, in EVERY COLB/Citizenship thread, to prove that there are SEVERAL ways to gain citizenship.
I'm not disputing that. What is being disputed is the notion that "Citizen at Birth" is always the same as "natural born citizen".
The term "natural born" was used in English and British Colonial law, long before the Constitution was written. (Although they of course said "natural born subject.) Thus the term had meaning when the Constitution was written, that's the meaning it still has when applied to a Constitutional provision.
It must be that way, otherwise we have a living breathing document, meaing whatever Congress says it means. I don't think you or I want to go there. (Although some on this thread seem to want to).
So? And the 1795 legislation has been modified since.
This is speculation, as I've not researched the 1795 law, but I wonder if they realized that they have no power to define a Constitutional term, and so did not repeat their error.
Shouldn't they be guided by a Supreme Court decision before deciding what is Constitutional and what is not? Or if it is up to Congress to decide what's Constitutional then the 1952 Act does that, doesn't it?
It has been observed, by others, that the passage and ratification of the 10th amendment occurred between the passage of those two laws. That *may* have made them realise they had overstepped their bounds. They used to consider things like that.
What in the Bill of Rights would lead them to conclude that?
Only you could call the relevant legislation irrelevant.
In fact, a simple majority of Congress can enact a law, at any time, and forbid the Court from exercising jurisdiction on that law. They rarely have the guts to do so, but it can be done.
Perhaps off topic a bit, but -— holding the SCOTUS out as the ONLY authority on the Constitution is not what the founders intended.
Congress DOES have the right to make a Constitutional definition, but when they do so, it would be best if they actually stated their power to limit appellate jurisdiction.
MM:”I think you’re off into wild speculation territory here.”
Well no doubt, it is speculation - not sure if it is wild.
You must admit that Obama has purposefully denied us much detail at all to work on and we have had to scrape very hard to get the minimal info we DO have.
The situation we have found between Obama’s mother and father (Obama Sr.) seems quite bizarre from my personal perspective and experiences so it is hard to rule out some of the more “wild” possibilities. One thing we can all agree upon - Obama’s mother was not your average american 18 year old girl in the 1960’s. The idea that she (or even Obama Sr.) may act out of the ordinary is probably to be expected.
So am I.
Though I do not agree with all that you have posted. (Heck, if we all agreed, all the time, this would be boring)
I got someone else’s post mixed up with yours, in my head.
Some are paid Obama operatives.
I posted the list at Calpernia’s Bar of Integrity. But JimRob told me to stop troll hunting, so I did. Can’t say I agree with it, though. Did JimRob tell you to stop? Any idea why he would go so far down the wrong path?
All branches of government, and all the officers of the exective, the members of Congress and the Judiciary are sworn to support and defend the Constitution. But Congress does not have the last word. They can pass what they wish, and at one time Constitutionality was argued in those chambers (for instance, in the 1930s, the Attorney General was questioned about the Constitutionality of the Harrison Narcotics Act and the National Firearms Act. Both use the same "power to tax" justification)
Or if it is up to Congress to decide what's Constitutional then the 1952 Act does that, doesn't it?
I don't know if parts of the '52 act have been declared unconstitutional, but the parts you are probably speaking of probably have not been. Of course they, like the 1795 act and immigration and naturalization acts between them, do not mention "natural born" citizenship. So what is your point?
What in the Bill of Rights would lead them to conclude that?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I certainly don't see any delegated power to modify the Constitution unilaterally, perhaps you can point that part out. There is a power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization", but not to change the definition of "natural born citizen", or most other terms in the Constitution for that matter.
True in most cases, but not all.
Art. III section 2: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
"all other" indicates that there are some cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.
It could be argued that this would be one of them, since each State whose electoral votes went to Obama and Biden, would be a party, they having certified votes for an allegedly ineligible candidate.
But otherwise, I agree, the Congress and the President are supposed to consider the Constitutionality of the laws they pass and sign, and they once did. But not recently. Now "let the Supreme Court worry about that. Bush said as much when he signed the McCain-Fiengold Act.
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.