How is an amendment made under the suspension of the Constitution “at the very foundation of our nation”? Remember the south was FORCED to ratify the 14th to regain congressional representation, that blatantly violated the 9th and 10th amendments. In reality the post war amendments were done in blatant disregard of the constitution, just as Lincoln had no problem waiving the constitution and suspending habeus corpus to get his way.
Completely false. The 1790 naturalization act completely obliterates that argument
The act also provided that children born abroad when both parents are US citizens "shall be considered as natural born citizens", but specified that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".This act was the only US statute ever to use the term "natural born citizen", found in the US Constitution concerning the prerequisites for a person to serve as president or vice president, and the Naturalization Act of 1795 removed the term.
Consider the case where:
M1 and F1 are US citizens abroad
They have a child, M2. M2 is a considered a "natural born citizen."
M2 never leaves that foreign nation.
M2 has a child with F2 (a US citizen abroad): M3.
M3 is not a US citizen as his M2 was never resident in the United States.
In the context of the Act, it seems like that clause is to prevent a chain of "natural born citizens" who never stepped foot in the US. It doesn't block citizenship by other avenues, it limits the naturalization act itself.
Wrong, jus sanguinis is at the foundation. Jus soli was added much later, and written specifically to only apply to people without citizenship in other countries, like slaves and injuns.
Should have done in back in 1492!
More seriously, won't stand, Jus Solis is at the very foundation of our nation, and it is embedded in the US Constitution (14th, Birthright Clause).
How is an amendment made under the suspension of the Constitution “at the very foundation of our nation”? Remember the south was FORCED to ratify the 14th to regain congressional representation, that blatantly violated the 9th and 10th amendments. In reality the post war amendments were done in blatant disregard of the constitution, just as Lincoln had no problem waiving the constitution and suspending habeus corpus to get his way.
The 14th codifies in the US Constitution what was the Common Law consensus. Born in US soil -> Natural born US citizen.
You can't define a nation if you have no legal definition of who your citizens are.
Congress can of course change what that definition is, but it can't be done by royal decree.
Completely false. The 1790 naturalization act completely obliterates that argument
Consider the case where:
M1 and F1 are US citizens abroad
They have a child, M2. M2 is a considered a "natural born citizen."
M2 never leaves that foreign nation.
M2 has a child with F2 (a US citizen abroad): M3.
M3 is not a US citizen as his M2 was never resident in the United States.
In the context of the Act, it seems like that clause is to prevent a chain of "natural born citizens" who never stepped foot in the US. It doesn't block citizenship by other avenues, it limits the naturalization act itself.
This act defined citizenship by naturalization.
It said nothing about birthright and Jus Solis.
How handy it is then that we have a President to use Executive Authority and not a King. No King, no Royal Decree.
Wrong, jus sanguinis is at the foundation. Jus soli was added much later, and written specifically to only apply to people without citizenship in other countries, like slaves and injuns.