They “considered” it in 1790, but made the right correction in 1795.
Doesn’t change the requirements for President as stated in the Constitution at the time of ratification.
When conservative judges are looking for original intent of the Founders they will look to the first legislation, the Naturalization Act of 1790 not to the 1795 Act. The Naturalization Act of 1795 was repealed and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1798.
You guys amuse me.
So what?
You don’t SAY this, but one might conclude you think the word going from “natural born” to simply “citizen” somehow means when an American citizen woman drops a baby overseas he or she is by law forbidden to run for POTUS.
If you mean that, have the guts to assert it. If you don’t mean that, please assert it. But then you would confront the problem of WHY are you bothering with this inanity.
“Oh the games people play now, every night and every day now, never meaning what they say now, never saying what they mean.”
This isn’t a game, but if it were, Senator Ted Cruz is holding all of the high cards in this matter and NOTHING will ever come of the invented controversy despite any and all efforts to the contrary.
Scholars are on Ted’s side.
And no, he won’t be derailed by some deranged individual’s lawsuit nor some democrat hack on the Bench somewhere trying to make legal soup out of a nothing burger.
He will, if necessary, make legal and Constitutional HASH out of them, instead.
Meanwhile, Jim Robinson and Mark Levin are still looking good from when they long ago declared that Ted Cruz is qualified to be POTUS.
Do the 1790 and 1796 naturalization acts supersede current US codified law...?
That current law says Cruz is eligible...
The rest is moot and navel gazing...at best...
1795 Naturalization Act:
"...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..."
Oh and they took out "that may be born beyond the sea" Who there must be some deep heavy reason for this too! What do you think of the reason for this? Redundancy?
Statutes cannot amend the Constitution.
Read this on post 67.. accurate? Thx
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3381517/posts?q=1&;page=51
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
That adoption was not instantaneous, nor was there time limit in the Constitution itself, so the two acts were passed in order to end that time limit.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States
The different terms in the two acts were used for the same reason the same exact terms were also used in the grandfather clause - to distinguish between a natural born and naturalized citizen.
Note that the first two presidents, Washington and Adams, were known for signing bills into law which both Madison and Jefferson argued were not reasonably based on constitutionally delegated powers.
In fact, note that probably one of the reasons that Madison is generally regarded as the father of the Constitution is that he was given a front-row-center seat at the Conventional Convention so he could record the discussions on paper.
On the other hand, I suspect that retired military genius George Washington, the president of the Constitutional Convention, got bored with some of the discussions and let his mind wander back to the battle field.
I am not an expert on this. Nor do I wish to debate the finer points of those two acts. I do want to point out there were naturalization acts passed well into the 1980’s (I think.)
You have to look at this in its totality, up to the most recent changes.
Anyway, we’ve already had one foreigner as president. Why not another? (Rhetorical and sarcastically alert!)
Unfortunately, neither of those snippets of law clear up the one parent or two parent question.
Notice:
1790 Act: “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
1795 Act: “An Act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject.”
Both are explicitly stated to be naturalization acts.
Notice too:
For “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States” to acquire citizenship required a naturalization act.
The 1795 Naturalization Act dropped "natural born" status for children born abroad. Washington signed both pieces of legislation so there must have been a reason for the change.
You were right, sr_ss, and it came right from the pen of James Madison, the author of the US Constitution.
NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization ActSYNOPSIS:
1) In 1969 Pinckney McElwee uncovered evidence in the House Committee notes from 1795 which indicate that the reason the reference to natural born citizen (NBC), included in the 1790 Naturalization Act, but entirely removed from the 1795 Naturalization Act, was that people would wrongly infer that that Act was actually intending that those born overseas outside the country were to become natural born citizens. Clearly Madison was not wanting to make natural born citizens of the children born overseas to American parents. On June 14, 1967, Representative John Dowdy introduced McElwee’s unpublished article, “Natural Born Citizen” (pg 10), on the House floor, to the U.S. House of Representatives. Until recently, the import of this evidence has been largely unrecognized.
Largely unrecognized until now when it is precisely relevant to this political season.
And 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States
1795 Naturalization Act text change:
, and 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 on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.
James Madison had written "shall be considered as natural born citizens" He did not say, shall be as natural born citizens. In the revised act that abolished the first he corrected his own text to make it less susceptible to misinterpretation.