OK, try to follow my "logic and reasoning" and constrain the 'inquiry and resort" as if in the minds of the Framers and look to ONLY those Acts they established fresh off the heels of a long Campaign of War and years of debating the interests of each individual 'State" and the Confederation of States in perpetual Union and the long hot summer of the Constitutional Convention.

They were NOT off on a lark; John Jays letter was surly seasonable for his suggestion was entered to the Clause without there being any apparent need for debate. Keeping in mind that John Jay was the 1st SCOTUS Chief Justice.

Put your minds in the times regarding women, who when born were of their Fathers political status and when married joined that of her husbands, and not otherwise. When a married woman bore a child it was "legitimate" and when un-married the child was a "bastard, illegitimate" .... and not otherwise. But, in fact, the 'political status' was rarely given any thought and only became of any issue except in the circumstances such as previously mentioned or the death of their father/husband when determining the chain of inheritable rights.

Therefore, women were given NO consideration whatsoever in the subject Act's of this inquiry, except as a "plural" designation of a Fathers parenthood.

Note here that 100% more thought into the status of women is given here than was expressed in the Constitution its-self or in the Acts I seek to construe.

Also consider the 'times' filled with competing interests of those who remained established, those who had been largely and or completely displaced and the multitude mixed with Patriot Warriors returning to peaceful endeavors, the harbors filling with ships coming and going filled with the hopeful incoming immigrants and bond servants and leaving with the defeated Royalist & Tories who could no longer be endured; and too, there were those of that latter class that remained to fight the legal battles to maintain or reclaim lands and estates lost within the various States, having been accused, indicted or convicted of given aid to the loosing side.

We look back now thinking that by seeing all of history a picture will emerge from the dots, commas, semi;colons, and apostrophe's, but try to realize that if the picture was not complete in the 1st instant on this particular subject then the Office of POTUS could be said to having not been legally occupied since the last Founding Generation POTUS, James Monroe.(?), if the Rule of Law was  indeed ever "established" after all.


Now, I have been accused of "clinging" to the original Acts on U.S. Citizenship because ONLY "Free White men" were eligible for U.S. Citizenship.

So, let's dispense with that 1st. The FULL text reads;

" ... That any Alien being a free white person, ......  may be admitted to become a citizen..." (1790)

" ... That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, ... "(1795)

"Person" is in bold in the acknowledgment that "reconciliations" to the exclusion of other races and genders has been made by  AMENDMENT's to the Constitution and therefore THOSE limitations have been removed by Constitutional means.

But it was there.... and WAS consistent with the Political compromises made at the TIME.

Also, there remains a disagreement on who was and who was not considered "alien's" insofar as U.S. Citizenship and its Laws were concerned at the time.

The current U.S. Code at 8 USC § 1101 - Definitions states simply; " ... (a) As used in this chapter—(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States."

I find NO fault with THAT understanding as being the case even since the Founding, (except to say there was NO "(U.S.) National" status enumerated until later in U.S. History...(Cuba, Puerto Rico, Philippines (?)..)

Upon Adoption and Ratification only those persons, (free white men), that were at that time a Citizen of any of the several States were "made" then (also) U.S. Citizens, and NO others.

The 9th State ratifying, being sufficient for ratification, was New Hampshire, (6/21/1788), and that signaled the calling of the 1st Congress who set about attending to the duties and obligations put upon them, now being Citizens of the United States, individually and collectively under the  Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause) that prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. Additionally, a right of interstate travel may plausibly be inferred from the clause; which reads; " ... The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. ...", the "several States" being any one and or all collectively.

The Taney Court in the much misunderstood and denigrated Scott vs Sandford case looked back, as WE must now, and made this comment in the Opinion of the Court;

" ... It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State [p407] which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States...."

So now it is for WE to determine if "birthright Citizenship" was indeed "established as an uniform Rule.... throughout the several States "... while providing the means to "otherwise" include the additions of "aliens in the 1st instant within the Acts of the 1st and 3rd Congress's.

{Both 1790 and 1795 Acts here, [open in separate window for ease of viewing]}


WE should not belabor the question of distinction between "naturalization" and "citizenship" except to say that the ONLY distinctions stem from Political Decisions that are embedded into the Founding Documents and its authorized Laws thereafter.

Certainly history has a lot to say about the members of various societies whose existence most certainly was founded on a conquest of one sort or another, but the one thing that remains constant is that the 'victors' have the right to say who is or is not a member of their society.

So it was/is, under the Constitutional Rule of Law WE discuss. Also accepted is that history 'informs', but it is the political decisions that are in immediate control. 

It certainly helps to know historical distinctions in their context rather than to be consigned to algebraic symbols without the foreknowing of their values, but in fact, when construing the "statutory construction" of 'foundational laws", in the end they can be proved by reducing those to algebraic equations. 

(Which today, when applied to the statistical analysis of the current total population would yield a population estimate of approximately 260 million (mol) U.S. natural born Citizens alive today; [adjusted for wars, immigration cycles, et al]).

From the 1790 Act; “ … and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.  And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. … “

In a sense, this provision may have made logic & reasoning easier to reconcile if it had been placed AFTER the following provision; “ … 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: …”

Clearly this “naturalization provision” is made in ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of the doctrine of “birth right citizenship” owing to a Citizen and then ‘enlarged’ to include that RIGHT regardless of where in the world the birth of a Citizens child may take place and notwithstanding the “local laws” where the birth may occur. 

(It should not be doubted that when a child of a (U.S.) Citizen is “considered as” as a (U.S.) natural born Citizen when born abroad that child would be at least be “considered as”, if not actually being, a (U.S.) natural born Citizen when born within the territorial limits of the U.S.)

So back to the former provision that “made” the children of a newly naturalized alien also citizens AT THE SAME TIME, (subject to the conditions of the provision).

Now, putting the two together we find that the “newly naturalized Citizen”, now being a U.S. Citizen invested with all of the Rights and Privileges and Immunities of a Citizen will thereafter enjoy the benefit of bestowing “birth right Citizenship” upon their prodigy they may have thereafter.

This, in my own estimation, IS the “established uniform Rule" of (U.S. Citizenship) / naturalization, (of “aliens” into (U.S. Citizenship)).

With the Repeal & Replacement of the 1790 Act by the 1795 Act the ONLY distinguishing change, other than process and obligations on an “alien” aspiring to Citizenship, is that change made regarding the children of U.S. Citizen parents when; “ … born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: … “

No longer considered as (U.S.) natural born Citizens but simply “Citizens”, being enough of a change to remove them from the strict interpretation and precise language of the subject Clause wherein “natural born Citizen” is made a creature of the Constitution. 

And at the same time reduces the “circumstances” by which a (U.S.) natural born Citizen may be “made”, now being restricted to being born within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States. 

Here WE can advance to the “reconciliations” made by Constitutional Amendments to determine if the Original Text of the Clause V of Article II Section I is otherwise affected.

Age and residency are separate provisions and will be laid on the table as they are, recognizing that they too can ONLY be changed by Constitutional Amendment.

“ … no person except ….”, well, reconciliation is done, notwithstanding the fact that there may have been some “jackasses and or predatory sharks” elected to the Office of POTUS, in fact the provision its self was NEVER discriminatory as to Race or Gender, and as science advances WE may be able to determine the true nature of “persons” that aspire to the Office.

So, what other “reconciliations” are required…?

Only one comes to mind. 

Under the Constitution and its Laws as existed up to the 1930’s a women’s political character was subject to change based on the political character of her father / husband.

But, since that (Act..?) women maintained the political character of their own choosing and or by the operation of law “independent” of their relationships with a male of the same or other political character.

So, to make the last “reconciliation” that comes to mind is to say that to be a (U.S.) natural born Citizen no longer requires the U.S. Citizen father to be married to a U.S. Citizen biological mother, provided that the biological mother is indeed a U.S. Citizen.

Views: 16


You need to be a member of Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots to add comments!

Join Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots

© 2021   Created by Kelly Townsend.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service