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

To: traderrob6
Bears repeating:

“Additionally, the first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were, too, natural born citizens. Many members of the inaugural Congress were also authors of the Constitution.”

This precedes your court case by some 100 years and certainly illustrates with clarity the mindset of the framers concerning this very issue..



And those same framers repealed the Naturalization Act of 1790, and passed a new act - Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the text that had declared children born abroad were 'natural born Citizens'. Below is a link to the law.


SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.


Notice it clearly states that such children, born to Citizens abroad, are 'citizens', and NOT 'natural born citizens'. Why? Did they want to make sure that no such children would end up being President? I don't think so. The reason, that I think, they removed the 'natural born citizen' text, is because they realized that they didn't have the authority leave it in. Being 'natural born' is an element of natural law, and no man is capable of changing the laws of nature. So they revised the text, to what they were capable of, and declared that children, born out of the jurisdiction of the US, to Citizens, would be 'naturalized', and not 'natural born', Citizens.



180 posted on 01/15/2016 12:44:25 PM PST by MMaschin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies ]


To: MMaschin

“Notice it clearly states that such children, born to Citizens abroad, are ‘citizens’, and NOT ‘natural born citizens’. Why? Did they want to make sure that no such children would end up being President? I don’t think so. The reason, that I think, they removed the ‘natural born citizen’ text, is because they realized that they didn’t have the authority leave it in. Being ‘natural born’ is an element of natural law, and no man is capable of changing the laws of nature. So they revised the text, to what they were capable of, and declared that children, born out of the jurisdiction of the US, to Citizens, would be ‘naturalized’, and not ‘natural born’, Citizens.”

The fact that it was removed is accurate, the reason for that is quite speculative.


182 posted on 01/15/2016 12:54:29 PM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | 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