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

Skip to comments.

Comparing the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts
Indiana University ^ | 1790, 1795 | US Congress

Posted on 01/09/2016 10:58:04 AM PST by sunrise_sunset

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..."

1795 Naturalization Act:

"...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..."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 1790; 1795; cruz; naturalborncitizen; naturalizationact
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last
To: RegulatorCountry

Exactly.


21 posted on 01/09/2016 12:14:51 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
Scholars are on Ted's side.

And no, he won't be derailed by some deranged individual's lawsuit nor some democrat hack on the Bench somewhere trying to make legal soup out of a nothing burger.

Supreme case law says not.

This is all academic anyways as Cruz has a very slim chance at winning the nomination. I would not be so certain or to take the chance that Cruz wins.

22 posted on 01/09/2016 12:16:21 PM PST by Red Steel (Ted Cruz: 'I'm a Big Fan of Donald Trump')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freedomjusticeruleoflaw

The Supreme Court ruled in 1874 in Minor v Happersett that: “The Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be Natural Born Citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”
The courts deal with each legal challenge to Natural Born Citizen status on a case by case basis.


23 posted on 01/09/2016 12:19:02 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Lets get to the nub of it without the law passed by Congress would Cruz be a citizen?


24 posted on 01/09/2016 12:21:31 PM PST by Red Steel (Ted Cruz: 'I'm a Big Fan of Donald Trump')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

... therefore, the Legislature had no authority to extend the meaning of a term over which it had no Constitutional authority. Thus, the term was removed in the 1795 Act.


25 posted on 01/09/2016 12:23:53 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sunrise_sunset

Read this on post 67.. accurate? Thx

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3381517/posts?q=1&;page=51


26 posted on 01/09/2016 12:26:59 PM PST by chicken head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grania

Natural born = citizen by birth and not requiring naturalization process.


27 posted on 01/09/2016 12:31:13 PM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sunrise_sunset
It was purposeful change, IMO - to stay in accordance with the Constitution's grandfather clause

at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
That adoption was not instantaneous, nor was there time limit in the Constitution itself, so the two acts were passed in order to end that time limit.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States
The different terms in the two acts were used for the same reason the same exact terms were also used in the grandfather clause - to distinguish between a natural born and naturalized citizen.

28 posted on 01/09/2016 12:56:12 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am a person as created by the Las of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Canada and Mexico?

Not sure the Original 13 states had even heard of Mexico in 1795.

29 posted on 01/09/2016 12:57:59 PM PST by Starstruck (I'm usually sarcastic. Deal with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

so the two acts were passed in order to >begin and< end that time limit.


30 posted on 01/09/2016 12:58:21 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am a person as created by the Las of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: grania
The 1795 law (which would take precedence, replacing the earlier one) makes it clear that the child of US citizen parents born outside the US is a citizen but not a natural born citizen.

It would be clear if the law said that but it doesn't. You are making things up.

31 posted on 01/09/2016 1:01:22 PM PST by Starstruck (I'm usually sarcastic. Deal with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck

I doubt that, but there were foreign jurisdictions that were not “beyond Seas,” and that error was also corrected via the 1795 Act.


32 posted on 01/09/2016 1:01:43 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Lets get to the nub of it without the law passed by Congress would Cruz be a citizen?

Since the constitution doesn't define NBC, why not?

33 posted on 01/09/2016 1:05:19 PM PST by Starstruck (I'm usually sarcastic. Deal with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting
Statutes cannot amend the Constitution.

You are pissing in the wind here friend. I have grown weary trying to make people realize the folly of trying to amending the constitution with a statute.

They don't get it. The concept is too complex for many people. They will go on believing that Congressional Statute law is some sort of back door for amending the Constitution.

You just can't shake people's belief in this.

34 posted on 01/09/2016 1:05:51 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
According to the Constitution, it can. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: [The Congress shall have Power] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

Very good. You are rightly recognizing those statutes as "naturalization" laws. Yes, congress has the power of naturalization.

You're getting there.

35 posted on 01/09/2016 1:08:17 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

A PING for your thoughts on post 28 since it ties into the discussion yesterday.


36 posted on 01/09/2016 1:09:48 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am a person as created by the Las of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: norton
Natural born = citizen by birth and not requiring naturalization process.

Naturalization process? You mean like a law that naturalizes people at birth? That sort of thing?

37 posted on 01/09/2016 1:10:26 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Does matter how many opinions you collect, the Constitution is clear and Ted is not a natural born citizen.

If it suits you to believe he is, fine. Just know that you are contributing to the destruction of our country. You can leave that legacy for your children and grandchildren.


38 posted on 01/09/2016 1:11:39 PM PST by Duchess47 ("One day I will leave this world and dream myself to Reality" Crazy Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
I doubt that, but there were foreign jurisdictions that were not “beyond Seas,” and that error was also corrected via the 1795 Act.

Oh don't be stupid. The phrase "or out of the limits of the United States" was in both acts. This would also include areas "beyond the seas", so "beyond the seas was redundant. Citizen at birth and Natural Born citizen are also redundant.

39 posted on 01/09/2016 1:11:43 PM PST by Starstruck (I'm usually sarcastic. Deal with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck
Since the constitution doesn't define NBC, why not?

It doesn't define "bullets " either, but it certainly protects the right to keep and bear arms, the exercise of which requires "bullets."

Natural Born Citizen is an axiomatic extension of the founding doctrine of the US. It's called "Natural Law", and it was a "thing" in the last half of the 18th century. It was a very big "thing" back then.

40 posted on 01/09/2016 1:13:59 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last

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.

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