Posted on 01/08/2016 6:52:06 PM PST by Uncle Sham
The new law simply abandoned the term natural born citizen. It didn’t redefine it. The only time the term “natural born citizen” has been defined in U.S. law it simply required one of the parents to have been a U.S. citizen and the father to have been a resident at one time of the United States. Ted Cruz clearly passes this standard. Case Closed.
Big Orly Taitz fan, are you?
Big Orly Taitz fan, are you?
This is exactly correct. Only a constitutional amendment can change the constitution.
Both of these were laws. Natural born citizen is not defined in the Constitution. The first version assigned a meaning to a persons status based upon a set of circumstances. The second version, which repealed the first version, changed the meaning using those same circumstances. The first meaning no longer applies.
The 1790 act simply required a child born outside the U.S. to have one citizen parent. Additionally a child could not be a natural born citizen if their “fathers have never been resident in the United States.” Ted Cruz’s father had previously been a legal resident of the United States and his mother was a U.S. citizen. Thus according to the first Congress he was a natural born citizen.
Hornswaggling, commie adherents to Mohammadism?
Neither law is still in effect. There have been many amendments over the years which have changed exactly what needs to happen for a child born outside the U.S. to have citizenship at birth. However, the fact that the first congress, which included many of the drafters of the constitution, said that children born outside the United States could be natural born citizens completely blows your argument out of the water. Also, there never redefined natural born citizen in the later act - they simply changed the term to citizen. The only time “natural born citizen” has been defined in U.S. law it included the children of citizens born outside the United States. I repeat, case closed.
No act of Congress, whether today or 200 years ago, can change one word of the Constitution. That can only be done by the amendment process. Whatever “natural born” meant when the Constitution was ratified is simply and for all time what it freaking means. This is really not hard unless you’re hellbent on squaring the circle.
The two phrases mean exactly the same thing. Its just a more old English way of saying it.
Gee! Makes sense to me now that I see you are A2 S1 trasher. ( Article 2 Section 1)
Please find me the definition of Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution.
“A2 S1 trasher?” Now I’ve heard everything! LOL
Your mistake is referring to an act of Congress for help in determining the definition of “natural born.” I’m sorry, can Congress amend the Constitution?
At least I think they mean the same thing. Maybe I shouldn’t be quite so dogmatic.
Please try and be a reasonable person.
I am going to jump out of this argument. I find it to be painful.
I agree with you. The ones who repealed the Nationality Act of 1790 so that the term natural born citizen was properly applied agree with you as well. They corrected their mistake and by doing so, told us what a natural born citizen was NOT.
It’s amazing to me. I watch people who could probably reason out this simple problem in 60 seconds but for the fact that they have a horse in the race. Did the Founder’s know what “natural born” meant when THEY WROTE IT DOWN IN THE CONSTITUTION? If they did all we need to do is determine WHAT IT MEANT TO THEM.... Got it?
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.