Not this one. It was formed by the laws of nature, and of nature's God.
Posted on 01/08/2016 9:57:21 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
Do you understand legislation cannot define a term if the term is not there?
Not this one. It was formed by the laws of nature, and of nature's God.
Not much information exists on why the Third Congress deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.
It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."
The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.
Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.
Yes, since you’re too cowardly for that...is why I mentioned the other lightweights...Clement, Katyal, Laurence Tribe & Ted Olson...so you have a choice of a conservative, 2 libs & a libertarian...
Stop acting stupid. Obviously a couple of U.S. citizens on vacation in Canada is much different than a couple including one Canadian naturalized citizen and a presumably American citizen living and working on a permanent basis in Canada.
If someone is born here in the U.S. to parents who are not citizens and not here legally, we consider them to be an anchor baby. The INS considers them to be citizens at birth, it’s unclear whether that would hold up under any real judicial scrutiny. Whether anchor babies are NBC’s is anyone guess.
So what would have been done with the Consular Report of Birth Abroad? Recycle bin? Shredder? What if someone loses that?
Unfortunately having been through the last eight years where Obama was required to show nothing officially to prove his status, and courts not being willing to touch it, I’m not nearly so optimistic as you.
Yeah, not being satisfied with everything being hidden from the public is exactly the same as forever wanting “one more document” . . .
My youngest son was born in Okinawa, Japan when my husband was in the Air Force.
Even though he was born in an Army hospital, on probable US owned property, we had to apply for and obtain a CRBA.
We were told to use it as his birth certificate and that he would have dual citizenship until he turned 18.
Yes.
That is why I use the explanation where the same group of people did write it down.
One of the glaring ironies of this situation is that the known situation of Cruz - one citizen parent, born abroad - is identical to what Obama’s situation would have been if someone had come up with conclusive evidence that he had been born in Kenya.
Can’t help but wonder, if Cruz folks really did an honesty check, if any of them would say that they would have defended Obama’s NBC qualifications under the same circumstances.
My point was that they were not confused. They considered various terms axiomatic. "Arms" were known primarily as guns, and therefore required bullets, and so there was no need to explicitly define the characteristics of what was common knowledge of the time.
In the same manner, they knew what the meaning of "natural born citizen" was in 1787 because it was built on the same philosophical foundation as the nation itself was built upon. The very word "Citizen" is a clue as to what that philosophical foundation was. They explicitly chose not to use the word "Subject" to describe the people of the United States, though that was the normal term they inherited from the British common law. Where did they get the idea to use this word "Citizen" (which is from French and meant "City Dweller" up until the 14th century. *) to describe nationals?
When writing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson initially wrote the word "Subject" and then rubbed it out and changed it to "Citizen."
Did you think posting the same thing again to me was going to get a different response?
God Bless.
I have something very close to this, but alas, not exactly this.
I agree with that thought process. I don't think 3 years later it had greatly changed.
In the constitution, but not so much into just ordinary legislation.
No, you're trying to justify your belief that a citizen born in a foreign country is natural born by using a language in a dead law while ignoring the law that immediately followed it.
Yup except a quirk in the law re the residency requirement for the citizen parent works to Cruz’s benefit.
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.