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?
It was a Naturalization Act. Seems to me such an act would only be about naturalization and not about being an NBC. Perhaps that's why they left off the comment about being a NBC in the 1795 Act after including it in the 1790 Act.
But before they lopped the wording off about NBC, the Founders clearly gave us an indication about who they thought was an NBC in the 1790 Act.
It was a Naturalization Act. Seems to me such an act would only be about naturalization and not about being an NBC. Perhaps that's why they left off the comment about being a NBC in the 1795 Act after including it in the 1790 Act.
But before they lopped the wording off about NBC, the Founders clearly gave us an indication about who they thought was an NBC in the 1790 Act.
The propaganda line is pure cornpone. I’m a regular guy like you who posts on Free Republic. I’m connected to no cabal. I’ve not got access to wealth, power, or fame.
I’m stating what I read in the 1795 law.
The 1795 law says that for a child born overseas to US citizens his citizenship is:
1) a RIGHT
2) it DESCENDS from his parents.
READ the law. CITIZENS....RIGHT....DESCENDS. I’m not making it up. It’s right there in black and white.
***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...” ***