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

To: magglepuss

“.. How can a law change the Constitution! If we accept that Natural Born Citizen has morphed through simple laws by Congress, ..”

I believe you are sincere, but most of the Cruz birthers are all over the place, because they have another favorite candidate, but to answer your question..........

Where is Natural Born Citizen defined in the Constitution? I can’t find it there. Can you?

I did find this though:

“Natural born citizen defined

Our constitution doesn’t specifically define “natural born citizen” but is framed in English common law in effect at the time, and under English common law the term “natural born citizen” is understood to be a citizen at birth.

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England, as amended by statute.
snip
The Naturalization Act of 1790, passed just 12 months after our constitution became effective in 1789, undoubtedly reflects the understanding of “natural born citizen” in effect in that era, and states:

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…

excerpt http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/


295 posted on 01/10/2016 11:18:37 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]


To: Sun
"Parents who were citizens of a state"  photo image_zpsgskvqonk.png
304 posted on 01/11/2016 1:29:45 AM PST by bushpilot2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies ]

To: Sun

http://lonang.com/library/reference/tucker-blackstone-notes-reference/tuck-1e/

Blackstone’s Commentaries:
with Notes of Reference (1803)

St. George Tucker

VOLUME 1, NOTE E

From the whole of the preceding examination, we may deduce the following conclusions:

First …. That the common law of England, and every statute of that kingdom, made for the security of the life, liberty, or property of the subject, before the settlement of the British colonies, respectively, so far as the same were applicable to the nature of their situation and circumstances, respectively, were brought over to America, by the first settlers of the colonies, respectively; and remained in full force therein, until repealed, altered, or amended by the legislative authority of the colonies, respectively; or by the constitutional acts of the same, when they became sovereign and independent states.

Secondly …. That neither the common law of England, nor the statutes of that kingdom, were, at any period antecedent to the revolution, the general and uniform law of the land in the British colonies, now constituting the United States.

Thirdly …. That as the adoption or rejection of the common law and statutes of England, or any part thereof, in one colony, could not have any operation or effect in another colony, possessing a constitutional legislature of it’s own; so neither could the adoption or rejection thereof by the constitutional, or legislative act of one sovereign and independent state, have any operation or effect in another sovereign independent state; because every such state has an exclusive right to be governed by it’s own laws only.

Fourthly …. Therefore the authority and obligation of the common law and statutes of England, as such in the American states, must depend solely upon the constitutional or legislative authority of each state, respectively; as contained in their several bills of rights, constitutions, and legislative declarations …. which, being different in different states, and. wholly independent of each other, cannot establish any uniform law, or rule of obligation in all the states.

Fifthly …. That neither the articles of confederation and perpetual union, nor, the present constitution of the United States, ever did, or do, authorize the federal government, or any department thereof, to declare the common law or statutes of England, or of any other nation, to be the law of the land in the United States, generally, as one nation; nor to legislate upon, or exercise jurisdiction in, any case of municipal law, not delegated to the United States by the constitution.


406 posted on 01/11/2016 7:01:36 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies ]

To: Sun

Virginia cast off the British feudal law of perpetual allegiance in 1779 under the governorship of Thomas Jefferson...

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.


408 posted on 01/11/2016 7:05:14 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | 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