Problem is that the 1790 act stipulates “parents” plural, which would not apply to Cruz. The notion that one parent, and especially the mother, passes on natural born citizenship is a much later innovation that wasn’t around at the time of the Founders.
Further, the Bellei case actually supports the birther case, which the author apparently doesn’t understand.
“What are you wearing, Jake from Red State?....”
Provide explanation.
[ Problem is that the 1790 act stipulates “parents†plural, which would not apply to Cruz. The notion that one parent, and especially the mother, passes on natural born citizenship is a much later innovation that wasn’t around at the time of the Founders. ]
Problem is if you are citing the 1790 act (not in the constitution but a bill and not an amendment either) then aren’t you also acknowledging that all subsequent acts supersede it and according to the 1952 act Cruz is eligible?
Two clarifications:
1. Speaking in generalities, “parents” means one or both parents because “children,” not “child,” are the progeny. The wording spoke of both classes (parent & child) in the plural. Your interpretation, therefore, would need to have been written:
“And the CHILD (not 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...”
2. A citizen in 1790, though never explicit in this statement, was presumed to be male, i.e., a father rather than a mother. BUT the essence & fullness of citizenship DID change officially, if not over time and in otherwise general practice, with the passage of the 19th constitutional amendment, which leaves no doubt that “citizen” means either parent.
Another Cruizing BOT trying to FOOL you, Mr. Jake from Red State, with his own unconstitutional agenda. Simple as can be, the Three Legged Stool is required in Ted’s case, and he’s NOT able to sit on it, being an Anchor Baby made in Canada!!!
.
>> “Further, the Bellei case actually supports the birther case” <<
Not even close to true.
You have to read only the published majority opinion to see what it found.
You are trying to twist the opinion by adding in minority dicta.
.
>> “Further, the Bellei case actually supports the birther case” <<
Not even close to true.
You have to read only the published majority opinion to see what it found.
You are trying to twist the opinion by adding in minority dicta.