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

To: MMaschin

“Notice it clearly states that such children, born to Citizens abroad, are ‘citizens’, and NOT ‘natural born citizens’. Why? Did they want to make sure that no such children would end up being President? I don’t think so. The reason, that I think, they removed the ‘natural born citizen’ text, is because they realized that they didn’t have the authority leave it in. Being ‘natural born’ is an element of natural law, and no man is capable of changing the laws of nature. So they revised the text, to what they were capable of, and declared that children, born out of the jurisdiction of the US, to Citizens, would be ‘naturalized’, and not ‘natural born’, Citizens.”

The fact that it was removed is accurate, the reason for that is quite speculative.


182 posted on 01/15/2016 12:54:29 PM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies ]


To: traderrob6
The fact that it was removed is accurate, the reason for that is quite speculative.

You stated in an earlier post that the Nationality Act of 1790, which declared children born abroad to US Citizen were 'natural born Citizens' of the United States -
"This precedes your court case by some 100 years and certainly illustrates with clarity the mindset of the framers concerning this very issue.."


I'm simply stating the same. Since the Nationality Act of 1795 removed the text that declared children born abroad to US citizens to be 'natural born Citizens', that it "illustrates with clarity the mindset of the framers concerning this very issue" - that they did not consider such children 'natural born Citizens'.
199 posted on 01/19/2016 6:44:59 AM PST by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | 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