Posted on 02/16/2016 8:43:51 PM PST by omegatoo
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was amended, with the particular offending sentence removed and replaced. I'll also add the words of constitutional scholar Professor Natelson, cited 17 times by the Supreme Court when making their decisions:
Although Congress cannot alter the meaning of a constitutional provision, one may contend that this statute sheds light on the meaning of the constitutional meaning of "natural born." It was adopted by a Congress that included important Founders and it was enacted before all of the 13 original states had ratified the Constitution. But at least four factors weaken its persuasive force: First, the new federal Congress adopted it nearly a year after the Constitution had been ratified by eleven states. Its terms seem not to have been the subject of discussion during the ratification process. Second, the statute is ambiguous. It applies to the “children of citizens.†That may mean children with at least one citizen-parent. But it also might mean children with two citizen-parents. As noted above, other founding era sources that, at first glance, might seem to mean the former, actually mean the latter.
Third, when Congress used the term “citizen†it may well have meant only male citizens. Taken alone, it would not seem so. But remember that the then-prevailing assumption was that citizenship status followed the father. Observe how the statute's proviso focused solely on the father: "[T]he right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." Fourth, the presence of "natural born" language in a statute dealing with naturalization and not otherwise with natural born status seems to demand explanation, and one likely explanation may not be good for Senator Cruz's case: During the founding era, certain private rights, such as inheritance and land ownership, could depend on citizenship or natural-born status. Congress may have been seeking, not to explain or define the constitutional requirement, but merely to extend private benefits to persons who might otherwise be excluded. This would explain why the statute provides that the "children . . . shall be considered as natural born" not that they literally are natural born.
Yep he is a citizen, just not a natural born citizen, and as such goes not meet the requirements as set forth in the Constitution to hold the office of President of the United States.
Trump will sue the code, you and the delicatessen you frequent.
Compelling analysis there, Justice Holmes. Remind me to look elsewhere the next time I need a cert petition drafted.
LOL! The MI made me the man I am today, have you seen my legs?
“A ‘natural born citizen’ is a citizen ‘by nature’ not by statute.”
How exactly does “nature” identify a “natural born citizen”? Are you a natural born citizen? Do you have a “natural born citizen” stamp on your buttocks or something? I was unaware that nature did this.
Your definition does not jive with what the founders wrote. The very first statute on the matter (just 18 months after the ratification of the Constitution) clearly designated select individuals as being “natural born citizens” who were born abroad.
Either you are wrong or the founders. If I am wrong, I will happily be wrong along with the founders. And you can be right all you want for whatever it is worth.
But Cruz can still be president.
There is no question that Ted Cruz is now a US citizen.
On the other hand, noting that the OP does not say anything about requirements for NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, the problem is that Cruz was probably not born a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution to be president.
Because founding fathers thought in terms of "Nation" = "Race"= "Type of Individual." Like how all Zebras produce more Zebras and not horses. So Americans produce Americans. Frenchmen produce frenchmen. You are what you are by nature.
No. But would you like to learn more?
“he is a citizen, just not a natural born citizen”
Been debated to death, but the simple answer is that the founders considered “natural” to mean conferred by the parents.
While it is unquestionably true that a child born on US soil to two US citizen parents IS a “natural born citizen”, that does NOT preclude others from also being natural born citizens. (For evidence see the first naturalization act in 1790.)
Citizenship conferred at birth on the basis of a parent’s citizenship is “natural” according to the legal principle of jus sanguinis (by blood).
Cruz is a natural born citizen and can become president.
That’s right. The 1795 act specifically amended the 1790 act by changing only the word “citizens” back to “natural born citizen”. Oops!
The tormented Cruzeros are like squirrels surrounding a coconut they just can’t crack. “If we can open this one boys, we’ll eat like kings...!”
We’ve been over this countless times.
IT’S RIGHT THERE.
Ace Levy: “You shoot a nuke down a bug hole, you kill a lot of bugs.”
You have it exactly backwards:
"Any free white person could recieve citizenship providing they had renounced their allegiance to their previous state/sovereignty by name, lived in the United States for five years at least, behave as a man of good moral character, and renounced any title they possessed in the previous states. Once the applicant had been approved and recorded by the court clerk, all related children would receive citizenship whether they had been born in or outside the U.S. providing their father had at some point, resided in the U.S., and never been legally convicted of joining the army of Great Britain."
http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1795_naturalization_act.html
Natural born citizen replaced with 'citizen.'
The 14th Amendment created an implicit distinction among 14th Amendment native-born citizens, and statutory native-born citizens. A 14th Amendment native-born citizen is any person who (a) was born in the United States, and (b) was subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth. In contrast, a statutory native-born citizen is a person who does not qualify for birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, but receives U.S. citizenship, at birth, by laws enacted by Congress. For example, foreign-born children of American parents do not receive citizenship from the 14th Amendment; such children acquire U.S. citizenship, at birth, by statute.
Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen, period.
‘Ace Levy’was played by Jake Busey, you-know-who’s boy.
I thought Jake did a fine job.
You know what, you’re right. I quoted the wrong Act. But the 1795 act does not do what you claim, and only repeats the same language “shall be considered” as the first, and repeats the phrase “child of citizens”. It is a later Act which removes natural born entirely.
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.