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

To: Cboldt

Yes, I see that and have thought much about it. The constitution clearly gives Congress the authority to naturalize. But this also causes argument over naturalized by statute and natural. Since the article says natural born for president and VP, I thought it might be better for congress to establish what jurisdiction might be in certain circumstances and use that as opposed to naturalization.

It seemed to me like they did that in 1790.


169 posted on 01/19/2016 2:00:46 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies ]


To: Cold Heat
The 1790 Act is a legal fiction.

A real example, in today's law, is that "A 22 yead old shall be considered as a child"

Yep, that is a US regulation. So, is a 22 year old really a child?, or are we going to pretend so.

The 1790 Act is a definition all right. Properly read (as a definition), it says "A child born abroad to a citizen parent is NOT an NBC, but we'll pretend."

176 posted on 01/19/2016 2:16:39 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | 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