SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (29027)7/15/2008 7:02:05 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
Re: "No where does it say that the child of two American citizens is not a 'natural born US citizen'."

But does it say (in the 1795 law) how (an American child born overseas) qualifies for that designation? (Because that phrase from the 1790 law which *did* mention it was repealed....)

It doesn't matter what the 1795 law *doesn't say*. (I'm SURE there is a multitude of stuff that it 'doesn't say'. <GGG>)

Nor does it matter at all (from the point of view of American law) what 'I' think or imagine, or what 'you' think or imagine about the matter.

So far all that's clear to me is that:

1) the 1790 law, and it's direct language, that you cited does not apply (because it was long ago repealed). And,

2) the Supreme Court has pretty conclusively decided that the definition of this matter is in the hands of Congress... so that should be where we look for legal answers.

(And then there is that 1937 law... which specifically changed the status of those born in the Canal Zone....)
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News