Posted on 01/14/2016 11:29:42 AM PST by GIdget2004
Sorry about the “YES” wasn’t yelling. Adult Beverages excuse.
Chuckle...it’s like having a conversation with Al Gore....
Thanks.
CHAPTER IX. Of the Enumerated Powers of Congress
I hope those help you better understand what that phrase means.
Should we build CO2 emitting bonfires, party and cavort, take photos, and post them on Twitter in celebration of our survival?
“That means that those naturalized under the act would have the same protections under the law as a natural born citizen did, not that they became a natural born citizen through the passage of the law.”
Oh. So the founders who ratified the Constitution 18 months earlier were ambiguous? Re-read and repeat until it sinks in.
“Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”
The term “considered as” is used to define both naturalized citizen and natural born citizen.
All of your bold letters, condescension, mocking and other obtuse discourse will never make up for your lack of logic and facts to support your opinion.
So save your silly “you’ve got to be kidding me”, are you really that “simple minded” comments for yourself. Go look in the mirror. The majority of legal scholars share my opinion. So, even if it my opinion can be demonstrated to be wrong, it is not some silly argument that you make it out to be. However, your arguments continue to lack substance.
Thanks for the laugh. Best I've had all day.
And still nothing you posted supports anything other than my stipulation that a natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen at birth and a naturalized citizen is someone who becomes a citizen later.
Citizen at birth can be based on the parents’ citizenship or on the location of birth or both of these factors. But Congress clearly has the Constitutional authority to determine when and if citizenship is established at birth by whatever criteria becomes law. So, if the law so declares, Indians born within the US were not necessarily citizens. And children born outside of the US could be citizens at birth based on one or both of their parents being a citizen. The 1790 act makes it clear that children born abroad were only natural born citizens if their father had been a resident of the US as specified.
Without getting into maternal versus paternal citizenship, this would have the typical effect that people like Cruz would be natural born citizens, but his children would not be unless he moved to the US. If he had remained in Canada until they were born and then moved here, they would have to naturalize to be citizens. Of course the 1790 law was only in force for five years and is not applicable to Cruz. I am just using his case as an example.
Oh. I had not thought of that argument. Maybe I should reconsider my opinion. No, wait, laughing is not making a case. Maybe it is because the person laughing is trying to hide his insecurities and inability to form a coherent argument.
Do you do drugs? Maybe the idea that experts overwhelmingly disagree with you seems funny when you are high on something.
Your point?
Again, rather than spamming the forum and me particularly, do you have a point?
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.