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.
yet his definition appears no where in teh Contitution.
False. His definition appears no where in the Constitution. John Jay wasn't the first person to us Natural born citizen either, and there were many definitions being considered.
John Jay simply wrote a letter. He was not a founder, nor was he party to the drafting of the US Constitution
Good catch. Thanks for that. I stand corrected. It verifies the difference as being location. It speaks of "foreigners" at the overseas consulate or embassy.
It is still of no help to IC.
You can find other historical uses, statutes that have since been repealed, (such as one that requires a woman who marries a foreigner to renounce their citizenship!).
But I think this is mostly just poor drafting. I believe Alien is the legally accurate word, but that doesn't keep other words from popping up from time to time.
I know that's inconvienant for you, because even though it generally agrees with what your argument, it would be a simplier to make your point if all the statutes used the proper terminology. For that reason, I hesitated whether I should have brought it up at all.
yet his definition appears no where in teh Contitution.
Why would it have to when the definition was clearly known to all at the time, and there's readily available reference to the historically accurate definition?
Quote:
John Jay simply wrote a letter.
...which happened to be the origination of the Constitution's NBC requirement clause.
The reality is that the framers probably didn't put a lot of thought about what the term "natural" meant, and if you would have had a chance to ask them you probably would have gotten several different answers.
That's the difficulty with "original intent" interpretations of the Constitution. We don't know which of the many different intents we should deem the original one.
That's the difficulty with "original intent" interpretations of the Constitution. We don't know which of the many different intents we should deem the original one.
Given John Jay's letter, we DO know the intent of the NBC clause was to exclude foreigners.
Given the historically accurate definition posted earlier, we know that the definition of foreigner at the time was an individual who is a foreign citizen or subject.
John Jay was, in fact, the originator of the Constitution's NBC requirement clause,......
have you got any historical or legal source that agrees with your assertion?
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.
