This law was passed by many of the same men who wrote the Constitution. HERE is the relevant law. Amd here is the clause that the very first Congress (including many of the authors of the Constitution) said about foreign-born children [emphasis added]:
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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United StatesCruz's was an NBC, and his father did reside in the U.S.
Actually, you need to read the article then, esp. starting at pp. 332. The author makes an excellent case that the 1790 naturalisation law did exactly the opposite of what you just said.
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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.
Cruz's was an NBC, and his father did reside in the U.S.
Correct. Except that in the case of Cruz, his father resided in the US but I believe never became a US citizen. So the early law/concept boils down to the question of whether one citizen parent, in Cruz's case the mother, I'd enough to pass on NBC, or if both parents are necessary. Or, in the case of the time of the founders, it could only be passed on by a citizen father and not a citizen mother.
You of course are correct.
But facts don’t matter to the Trump cult.
What benefits Trump is more important than our Constitution.
Very well researched and stated!
Sadly, the actual Constitutionally authorized law passed by some of the very people who wrote the Constitution DOES NOT MATTER to these people who are pushing this issue.
All they are doing is helping Hillary, intentionally or not. And wow, won’t that be great for the Consitution if she gets in? /rhetorical
Now, how about quoting that same passage as it is worded in the Naturalization Act of 1795?
Then, tell me if something has changed.
The law passed five years later in 1795 begins by stating that it is “to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” and when you get to the same wording in the 1790 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*: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States ...”
The 1795 Act omits the words “natural born”, to wit:
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 ... “.
I’m going to conjecture that some sharp eyed clark in a tri-cornered hat said, “Hey, wait a second! ... we just expressly contradicted Article 2, Section 1, clause 5.”
Keep in mind that the US Constitution (clearing throat) trumps any subsequent federal or state law that clearly contradicts it, or any outrageous SCOTUS ruling.
Or any Obama executive order.
The error in the 1790 law was corrected in the 1795 law that replaced it. (Ps: A congressional enactment could not have changed the constitution anyway, but at any event Congress realized the mistake and fixed it.). Citing the 1790 language is of no avail.
The 1790 law was Unconstitutional, and quickly re-written.
Congress has the power to Naturalize citizens ONLY. It cannot create Natural Born Citizens.
Natural Born Citizens are determined by Natural Law, no law made by Man can address it.
The Foundation of Natural Law is self-evidence. As in “We hold these truths to be self-evident...” Self-evidence dictates that a child born to US citizens on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen of the US.
ANYTHING that complicates the matter obviates that Natural Born Citizen status. Thus, when women became able to pass THEIR citizenship to children, Natural Law for a Natural Born Citizen ceased to rely only upon the father’s citizenship and the child’s birth location, but now includes *both* parents.
CONGRESS has the power to Naturalize Citizens. That’s it...nothing more...but, it has been ruled that having the power, they have unlimited scope within that power. This allows Congress to Naturalize a child *at birth* AND without requiring *any* naturalization process. This is all it can do.
Congress *NEVER* had the power to legally write up who could be a Natural Born Citizen.
The entire point is moot until we once again have a Limited Constitutional Federal Republic.
When Madison rewrote the Act in 1795, he took that out.
As an attorney, I’d say that this is the best article I have read on the topic.
The issue is that there just isn’t a clear definition of the phrase. Legal terms of art get their definition either from a statute, e.g. “treason” in the Constitution, or through development if the common law. NBC really has neither. There just aren’t dozens of cases from the 18th century on whether you are a nbc if: your mom is a citizen and your dad isn’t,and vice versa, you’re born here, or not, etc.
In the end it was bad job by Madison. He should have defined the term.
That law was repealed in 1795. The “natural born” wording was removed, never to return after it was rewritten. I think this was due to the potential for conflict with the purpose of Article II, section 1, clause 5, which is to minimize the likelihood of baleful foreign influence upon the office of POTUS, particularly thru a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
Article II and the NBC requirement is intended as a protection for the office of POTUS, nothing else constitutionally. It was MEANT to be exclusionary. Too many are viewing this matter as a civil rights issue or something.
It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."
The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.
Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.
Actually the 1790 act (repealed 5 years later) stated: "...shall be considered as" natural born Citizens.