Citizen yes, NBC?
There is a reason Citizen and NBC are differentiated on the Constitution, I wish it was more clear.
I wish the 2nd Amendment only just stated "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" too.
What the Founders thought was a clear meaning of words, semantics, would not change was a mistake.
Other than that, I trust in their wisdom explicitly!
Heh. I know it's a topic astray from the thread, but there is no doubt in my mind that the Congress and Courts would have no more trouble infringing under that statement, than they did and do with the "well regulated militia" clause being in there too.
Wave the hand and redefine "arms", like Scalia did in the Heller case, to mean "arms in common use." Or redefine "infringe."
"Law" and "logic" are emphatically not the same thing. Law is what is enforced by the credible threat of force, death if you push hard enough. It's little more than brute force, couched in what its practitioners fancy to be righteous justification. But at bottom, it's nothing more than brute force. See, e.g., Mafia. Same thing, different name.
NBC?
Yes. The evidence is stacking up, Ron. I know you’re beginning to see it.
The Naturalization law of 1790 directly says it.
Blackstone says it.
The 1795 law says it’s by right and by descent from just one citizen parent.
Thomas Jefferson says it’s by birth to a citizen parent, so again, it’s by right of blood descent.
The congressional record says that congressman Burke and congressman Hartly both wanted to make provisions for children born overseas:
Burke said: “The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III. There are several other cases that ought to be likewise attended to.”
He says to follow the BRITISH who considered those children to be natural born subjects as noted above by Blackstone.
James Kent suggests the same thing, by right of blood descent:
“(2.) By a subsequent part of the same section, it is declared, that “the children of persons, who now are, or have been, citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citzens of the United States: provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never resided within the United States.” This clause is certainly not prospective in its operation, whatever may be the just construction of the one preceding it. It applied only to the children of persons who then were, or had been citizens; and consequently the benefit of this provision narrows rapidly by the lapse of time, and the period will soon arrive, when there will be no statute regulation for the benefit of children born abroad, of American parents, and they will be obliged to resort for aid to the dormant and doubtful principles of the English common law. This provision leaves us likewise in doubt, whether the act intended by the words, “children of persons,” both the father and mother, in imitation of the statute of 25 Edw. III.; or the father only, according to the more liberal declaration of the statute of 4 Geo. II. This clause differs from the preceding one, in being without any restriction as to the age or residence of the child; and it appears to have been intended for the case of the children of natural born citizens, or of citizens who were original actors in our revolution, and therefore it was more comprehensive and more liberal in their favour. But the whole statute provision is remarkably loose and vague in its terms, and it is lamentably defective in being confined to the case of children of parents who were citizens in 1802, or had been so previously. The former act of 29th January, 1795, was not so; for it declared generally, that “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.” And when we consider the universal propensity to travel, the liberal intercourse between nations, the extent of commercial enterprise, and the genius and spirit of our municipal institutions, it is quite surprising that the rights of the children of American citizens, born abroad, should, by the existing act of 1802, be left so precarious, and so far inferior in the security which has been given, under like circumstances, by the English statutes.”