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

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: RegulatorCountry

Who knows, since there is no recorded legislatve history to that effect. All I know is that since the adoption of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment in 1868 whoever qualifies as a Citizen of the United States At Birth under the 14th Amendment also qualifies as a Natural Born Citizen under Article II. Those two concepts have merged into one. Whether that was the Founder’s intent or not remains a mystery.

It is good to remember though that the vast majority of the Constitution in its original form was decided on by majority vote and there was very little that was voted up or down unanimously. History records no vote ever taken on who should be considered a natural born citizen. The term goes undefined. Again I point out that the courts rule on who qualifies as a natural born citizen on a case by case basis.


69 posted on 01/09/2016 2:18:33 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

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