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.
i know of minor v happersett. your original claim was "there is a definition of NBC that was written by the Founders close in time to the Constitution", MvH happened over 100 years after the ratification of the US constitution and all the founders were long dead.
The court referenced the definition of NBC in the 1790 Naturalization Act. Do you know the year that the US Constitution was ratified? If so, how many years after the Constitution was ratified, was legislation enacted that provided the definition of Natural Born Citizen?
Any over 100 years later, the Supreme Court still upheld that definition, regardless of subsequent legislation, since that definition was never retracted, redefined or over-ridden by a later definition.
Nope. There are two different terms used in Sec 301: "prior to" and "at any time prior to." (paragraph 5).
The condition set in Paragraph 7 is "prior to." Cruz's parents were living in Canada prior to Cruz's birth.
Orly Taitz fails at Boolean logic.
Sec 301(a) contains seven different scenarios, each of which describes a particular means of determining U.S. citizenship at birth. Paragraph 5 discusses people born within the United States. Paragraph 7 discusses people born outside of the United States. To claim that Paragraph 5 also applies to Paragraph 7 means that Paragraph 2 must also necessarily apply to Paragraph 7.
Orly Taitz, errr...., InformedConsent is not a citizen of the United States at birth because she fails the criteria set forth in Paragraph 2 - namely, she is not a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other Aboriginal tribe.
Give her credit though, this time she wasn't lying...she just isn't competent to read her own citation.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided ... that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.
That was repealed just 5 years later in 1795, and "natural born" was eliminated from the new law in 1795. The Supreme Court Judge erred in referring to what he should have known was a repealed law.
The Naturalization Act of 1790...
"...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."
But that Act was repealed only 5 years later in 1795, and no longer were children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits of the United States considered to be natural born citizens. They were only citizens.
"...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..."
That was repealed just 5 years later in 1795, and "natural born" was eliminated from the new law in 1795. The Supreme Court Judge erred in referring to what he should have known was a repealed law.
The Naturalization Act of 1790...
"...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."
But that Act was repealed only 5 years later in 1795, and no longer were children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits of the United States considered to be natural born citizens. They were only citizens.
"...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..."
Obama has a Hawaii birth certificate, Hawaii is part of the United States. Ted's birth certificate is from Canada, that is NOT part of the United States.
One can be born in the US and also be born a foreign citizen if the foreign parent's country has an automatically operating jus sanguinis nationality law, such as in the case of Obama's father: British Nationality Act of 1948.
That was repealed just 5 years later in 1795, and "natural born" was eliminated from the new law in 1795. The Supreme Court Judge erred in referring to what he should have known was a repealed law.
The Naturalization Act of 1790...
"...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."
But that Act was repealed only 5 years later in 1795, and no longer were children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits of the United States considered to be natural born citizens. They were only citizens.
"...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..."
Did the 1795 Act redefine Natural Born Citizen? Did it repudiate the definition of Natural Born Citizen?
If not, then the definition in the 1790 Act represents the unchallenged definition of Natural Born Citizen that was defined within a few years of the Constitution and thus the BEST EVIDENCE of what the Founders intended.
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
Hmmm. Actually, that could be the gotcha. I missed that.
It's a double gotcha that I missed after I posted that.
Cruz wasn't born in an outlying possession of the U.S.
But this would be the pertinent section that applies.
§1431. Children born outside the United States and residing permanently in the United States; conditions under which citizenship automatically acquired; determinations of name and birth date
(a) In general
A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.
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.
