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

To: ctdonath2
Congress declared that ‘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.’ 1 Stat. 104 (1790)
Ah, yes...the old cut and paste...Let's see what 5 minutes on the Net shows...
A Legal History of Chinese-Americans FEDERAL STATUTES/LAWS
An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, March 26, 1790.
Snip..."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." (1 Stat. 104). Repealed on January 29, 1795 by An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore on that subject." (1 Stat. 414).
So much for his due diligence.
55 posted on 02/15/2010 4:26:42 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: philman_36

“children of citizens of the United States”

Meaning BOTH PARENTS?


58 posted on 02/15/2010 4:29:04 AM PST by DaveTesla (You can fool some of the people some of the time......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

To: philman_36
Exactly philman_36. Quoting the repealed 1790 Nationality Act was popular among Obots last Spring. Mario Apuzzo provided a reasonable rationale: legislators, knowing the redefinition of natural born citizen could not be achieved without an amendment - an act or statute cannot modify a constitutional provision - nevertheless passed the bill as a favor to pre-ratification diplomats who might have been on assignment, and have had children born overseas. Some of these were founding fathers. As philman_36 points out, it was repealed in 1795.

The 1790 act was also used by Tribe and Olson in their effort to argue for the natural born citizenship of McCain, since it was clear that Obama’s handlers really wanted to run against McCain; McCain's ineligibility would and probably did prevent any questions about eligibility being asked from McCain's; campaign.

Ericson has unfortunately shown that politics trump his desire to appear knowledgeable about The Constitution, as well as exposing his willingness to lie. He cannot not have known about the 1795 repeal of the Nationality Act.

71 posted on 02/15/2010 4:59:22 AM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

To: philman_36

But it does clarify the original intent of the Founding Fathers, much like the Militia Act of 1792 clarifies the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

(FWIW: I’ll contend BHO was born in Kenya.)


95 posted on 02/15/2010 6:18:56 AM PST by ctdonath2 (Pelosi is practically President; the Obama is just her talk show host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | 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