If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

AN AUGMENTATION OF ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5?

August 11, 2013

In 1795, Congress changed the 1790 naturalization law, including wording which had previously said that a person born outside of the U.S. could be considered a “natural born Citizen” to say that such an individual would be only “a citizen”

Dear Editor:

The following letter was posted on Sen. Ted Cruz’s Facebook page today:

Senator Ted Cruz, Why do you not have the guts to just come out and say that you’re not Constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States? Is it because it would expose John McCain’s ineligibility to be POTUS?

The Naturalization Act of 1795 revised the Naturalization Act of 1790 by repealing the “natural born Citizen” status from children born outside the United States to U.S. citizen parents (plural) to only “citizen” status. Mr. Cruz, you can run for any Office Constitutionally EXCEPT for the U.S. Presidency. As you can clearly read here:

United States Congress 1790 Naturalization Act in part with the “natural born Citizen” wording:

“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: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.”

United States Congress 1795 Naturalization Act with the “natural born Citizen” wording removed and replaced with only “citizen.”

SEC. 3 in part: ” 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.”

Perversely in 2008 the DNC as well as the RNC ran ineligible Presidential candidates. Do you really want to be part of this deceit, Mr. Cruz?

Weakness in the Constitution will cripple the People.

Join the Conversation

7 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Slcraig, That provision of the 1790 Naturalization Act making children born overseas to American Parents, NBCs. was REPEALED in 1795. You don’t read very well. Do you? Furthermore, read Article 1, Sec. 8 specifically making reference to the “ancient doctrine” of the “Law of Nations” translated from Latin into French by Emmerich Vattel. A copy of which was brought back from France by then U.S. Ambassador to France, Benjamin Franklin. French being the formal language of foreign affairs at the time, the founders understood the meaning of “Les Naturels,ou indigenes,sont ceux qui sont.nes de le pays de PARENTS CITOYENS {emphasis mine}”. In english: Natural Born Citizens are those born in the country to parents who are both citizens.

    Several U.S. Supreme Court cases have affirmed the definition, saying unanimously in Minor v Happersett (1874) that a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. is one born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves.

  2. Jus Soli= Born IN a Country, on its soil.

    Jus Sanguinis= Born of the Blood of a Country’s Citizens

    One must meet both Jus Soli and 100% Jus Sanquinis to be President or Vice-President.

    A Natural-Born Citizen is “one born in a Country” (Jus Soli)

    IN ADDITION TO

    having been born “Of Parents who are Citizens”. BOTH of them. 100% Jus Sanguinis.

    The Highest level of citizenship is the Natural-Born Citizen. That is what the founders insisted and required for one to be POTUS.

    Neither Obama or McCain met this requirement in 2008. Cruz and Rubio do not either. Even Romney, whose father was born in Mexico, has a questionable status.

    1. Robert,

      Any reasonable and intellectually honest person would, or should, agree that the ancient doctrines of Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli are what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they were handed John Jay’s letter making the ‘suggestion’.

      But, lacking any reference to “foreign laws, ancient doctrines or philosophical writings on the subject” WITHIN any of Acts made by the Congress on the subject of citizenship, which is accomplished by naturalization in the 1st instant, those “foreign laws, ancient doctrines or philosophical writings on the subject” cannot be said to be controlling.

      If any one were, so would all of them.

      The Congress was given the plenary power over the subject of citizenship/naturalization within the enumerated power provisions of Article I and were mandated to ‘establish an uniform Rule of naturalization,(how citizens are to be made thereafter)…throughout the U.S….”

      In March of 1790 “…an Act to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization…” was passed with a single paragraph which contained the Supreme Law of the Land on the subject of citizenship by naturalization.

      It provided that the children of existing Founding Generation U.S. Citizen fathers, (who were ‘collectively naturalized” by the adoption of the COTUS, would be (U.S.) natural born Citizens no matter where in the world the child was born. (March 1790 to Jan. 1795)

      It also provided for the children of a newly naturalized alien father would ALSO immediately be U.S. Citizens also.

      The “effects” of those two provisions WAS the ‘establishment’ of the uniform Rule, i.e., once a U.S. Citizen then so too are your children.

      That IS the U.S. Law on the subject and resort elsewhere is not necessary to justify it.

  3. Sharon;

    This is proposition of law that I’ve tried to get you and others interested in for some time.

    Kuddo’s to the poster whoever it is ……….. let who ever it is know that I have a plan to take the ACTUAL Law to the State Courts in a challenge to the State Sec 0 State and and State Chapters of the Demosocialist and Rinopublican Parties with a Motion to Show Cause Order and Mandamus.

    It has taken awhile to learn the Law, but NOW that it is known it’s time to OBEY IT.