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

To: Spaulding; SoConPubbie; Lakeshark; C. Edmund Wright; P-Marlowe; little jeremiah
The 1790 Act was entirely repealed in 1795, signed by Washington, and mention of natural born citizen removed forever from U.S. Code

Actually not. The 1795 law makes the 1790 law more clear. The 1795 law says that the right of citizenship DESCENDS from parent to child by RIGHT to children born to citizens overseas.

1795 - "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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States..."

In the above case, the children born to citizens overseas have the right of citizenship descend from their parents.

124 posted on 08/22/2013 10:24:50 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]


To: xzins

Why are you equating “citizenship” with “natural born citizen”? Boggles my mind.


126 posted on 08/22/2013 10:52:20 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies ]

To: xzins
"Actually not. The 1795 law makes the 1790 law more clear. The 1795 law says that the right of citizenship DESCENDS from parent to child by RIGHT to children born to citizens overseas."

Anyone still following this thread should note the tactic. xzins has repeated the phrase from the 1795 act, including the removal of ‘natural born citizen’ and replacement with ‘citizen’, exactly as I stated, but asserted that was “Actually not” the case.

Propagandists have an objective other than truth, though many are motivated by what they believe to be a higher truth, whether Allah or Mao it is hard to tell. The objective is to keep as many confused as possible so their 'tribe' gains or retains voters willing to be guided by a mob rejecting our Constitution and its protections. An ineligible president must always live fearing exposure. Soon the power of a dictatorship, whether Sharia or 'of the proletariat' will render the Constitution completely irrelevant. That is the irony of Levin's blatant misuse of law in the interests of an ineligible candidate as he proposes and promotes what seem to be promising amendments to restore our Constitution. One can only wonder if the IRS, or Grover Norquist/Suhail Khan, or John Brennan are part of the reason for his legal misstatement, or is it ignorance?

There are many conjectures for why Washington would ever have signed the 1790 Act, since he and most probably every one of the founders, framers, and, to a lessor extent, congressmen know the common-law definition, Vattel having been Jefferson’s principal source for the Declaration and used extensively by Washington, his right hand Hamilton, and Madison. One suggestion (by Mario Apuzzo I belive, was that he may have signed the 1790 Act because so many of our diplomats on assignment had born children overseas.

The significance of the 1795 Act is enormous. It is the only Congressional confirmation of the common-law definition familiar to our framers, as cited by Marshall, and Waite, and Gray, and Evans Hughes. Congress clarified that foreign born children of citizens are citizens, not ‘natural born citizens’. The 1795 Act, an Act being a product of Congress signed by the President, confirmed the definition quoted by Marshall in The Venus, 12 U.S. 263 (1814), “Born on the soil to parents who are its citizens.” By correcting themselves Congress confirmed the common-law, later made positive law by Minor v. Happersett. That is the only statement in U.S. Code addressing the meaning of the term used in Article II Section 1, and none other was necessary, or constitutional. It explicitly disqualifies McCain and Cruz, contrary to Levin's assertion, and an obvious reason for a Cruz supporter to elevate the 1790 Act, depreciating the 1795 Act?

128 posted on 08/22/2013 2:20:45 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | 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