Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Historians Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg at Louisiana State University and coauthors of "Madison and Jefferson" outline the history of original intent of natural born citizen in an utterly non partisan manners.
Funny how they completely ignore the first naturalization act, where it endows foreign-born children of American fathers with natural-born status. Kinda flies in the face of their argument that the Founding Fathers intent was to deny those not born on American soil the right to become President.
It's actually refreshingly honest that they DON'T. The Act to which you refer was REPEALED in 1795, and is no longer relevant since.
Anyone can look up the latest Congressional attempt to make such persons Constitutionally eligible for POTUS. It failed.
2004 Senate bill 2128.
It doesn't matter if it was replaced by another naturalization act. The FACT that you can't overcome is that it was made law, immediately after the ratification of the Constitution, and that it speaks much more to the intent of the Founding Fathers than all the debate over common law.
Useless bill as it does not define "natural born".
correct, but i do think it sets things up for a challenge ( if passed ). if cruz is denied a place on the ballot then he has a case that he does meet the requirement and if he is allowed on then another candidate has a case that he doesn't ( altho i believe the later challenge could be currently filed ).
If you say so, like I've said. I don't have a dog in this fight.
The article was posted to help with the discussion, so discuss.
I DID discuss. They talk about the intent of the Founding Fathers. I pointed out that the intent they extrapolated is impossible in light of the 1790 Naturalization Act. You can't say on the one hand that the Founding Fathers didn't want foreign-born citizens to become Presidents of the United States, when the Founding Fathers are passing legislation making foreign-born citizens eligible to become Presidents of the United States.
It doesn't matter if it was replaced by another naturalization act. The FACT that you can't overcome is that it was made law, immediately after the ratification of the Constitution, and that it speaks much more to the intent of the Founding Fathers than all the debate over common law.
Exactly, It's obvious from reading cases on naturalization that the courts have taken judicial notice of the definition of natural born citizen from the 1790 Act, regardless of the fact that the act was superseded by a later act. The court clearly sees that while the 1970 Act was "repealed," the definition of natural born citizen was never overturned by later Acts, legislation, case law or Constitutional Amendment. It seems only logical that the founders' intend with regard to what defines a Natural Born Citizen was set out in the 1790 Act, and since that definition took place so close in proximity to the writing of the Constitution, any court would be hard pressed to deny the validity of that definition regardless of later Acts that either expanded or contracted the requirements of citizenship or naturalization, but NEVER contradicted the original definition set forth in the 1790 Act.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
