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

To: jospehm20

“Law professors presumably know the law. Perhaps better than some guy on an internet forum.”

That is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Cruz himself is a Constitutional scholar as well. He has also clerked for the Supreme Court and argued cases there. We do not need an ivory tower professor to divine for us the intent of the founders. We can read them for ourselves.

Here is the law I cited:

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the 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. 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: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Do you see the part about natural born citizens being born abroad? The legal theory of your professor is wrong, because it is clear that the founders did NOT base natural born citizenship on British common law or the legal theory of jus soli.

We have lots of writings of the founders. Letters. Speeches. Laws. Not one iota was written dissenting from the above law. Why is that?

Allowing other people to do our thinking for us, rather than engaging in the discourse and understanding the reasons for our way of life, has brought us to the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in today.


180 posted on 02/16/2016 8:04:24 AM PST by unlearner (RIP America, 7/4/1776 - 6/26/2015, "Only God can judge us now." - Claus Von Stauffenberg / Valkyrie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies ]


To: unlearner

Whatever. We disagree. I won’t change your mind and there is no way you will change mine. There is no doubt in my mind that Cruz is non US NBC. Have a great day.


181 posted on 02/16/2016 8:19:40 AM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies ]

To: unlearner
We have lots of writings of the founders. Letters. Speeches. Laws. Not one iota was written dissenting from the above law. Why is that?

Here is where you are wrong.

NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act

SYNOPSIS:

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.


NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act


Here is the text of the 1790 Naturalization Act:
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.

207 posted on 02/16/2016 11:08:05 PM PST by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken! Trump 2016 - and Dude, Cruz ain't bona fide either)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | 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