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

To: xzins
xzins quotes: "The Naturalization act of 1795 accounted for that: "

It's late. Do you interpret this to mean that the heir to the throne is or is not eligible to be President as described in my hypothetical?

What you have cited is specifically a "naturalization" act of Congress and thus has no authority to lessen a Constitutional restriction.

38 posted on 06/12/2014 5:26:00 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: William Tell

What I’m saying is that in the era of the revolution, that would never have happened.

Today, if you marry a princess of England, then your child will be a citizen at birth of the USA, provided you have met the residency requirements.


39 posted on 06/12/2014 5:28:46 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: William Tell
It's late. Do you interpret this to mean that the heir to the throne is or is not eligible to be President as described in my hypothetical?

Clearly not: " Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..." The king was never a resident of the United States.

What you have cited is specifically a "naturalization" act of Congress and thus has no authority to lessen a Constitutional restriction.

Congress has the Constitutional power to pass uniform rules of naturalization. As part of that, wouldn't you agree would be the responsibility to identify those who don't need to be naturalized? In other words, define natural born citizens?

40 posted on 06/12/2014 5:33:52 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | 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