Twitter | Search | |
KrisAnne Hall, JD πŸ’Ž
WATCH the KrisAnne Hall Show on YouTube: Answering: Harris Eligibility NY Abortion Law
Reply Retweet Like More
Kimberly πŸ™Œ Jan 23
Replying to @KrisAnneHall
Awesome
Reply Retweet Like
T.F. Bow Jan 23
Replying to @KrisAnneHall
is wrong: Every judge who heard an eligibility case on the merits ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural-born citizenship. E.g., Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ct. App. Ind. 2009)
Reply Retweet Like
Charlie Hughes Jan 23
Replying to @KrisAnneHall
Even in the 19th century this was false. Legal experts *William D. Guthrie and A.P. Morse) in 1898 said the Wong Kim Ark decision made Chinese children born in the US eligible to be President
Reply Retweet Like
Charlie Hughes Jan 23
Replying to @KrisAnneHall
In the Wong Kim Ark decision, Justice Gray cited previous court cases that ruled just being born in the US conferred citizenship on Chinese children. So in Ms. Hall's opinion, how does the modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment differ from the 19th Century interpretation?
Reply Retweet Like
Kimberly πŸ™Œ Jan 23
Replying to @KrisAnneHall
What I read about the new NY abortion law is that the 24-week limit was retained for on-demand abortions. After 24 weeks, the life and health of the mother must be at risk or the baby is no longer viable, then doctors can perform abortion.
Reply Retweet Like
Kimberly πŸ™Œ Jan 23
Replying to @KrisAnneHall
I didn’t find the full text of the new laws on Nystate site, only a summary of changes. Am I wrong about the limitations?
Reply Retweet Like
Charlie Hughes Jan 24
Replying to @KrisAnneHall
1/ In January, 1795 Congress debated a new naturalization act to replace the 1790 act. From the Annuals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 2nd Session, Page 1033
Reply Retweet Like
Charlie Hughes Jan 24
Replying to @KrisAnneHall
2/ Congressman Giles suggested an amendment that would require aliens with titles of nobility to renounce their titles before they could become citizens. Annuals of Congress House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 2nd Session, Page 1033
Reply Retweet Like
Charlie Hughes Jan 24
Replying to @KrisAnneHall
3/ The next day the Giles amendment was formally introduced. From the Annuals of Congress House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 2nd Session, Page 1041
Reply Retweet Like
Charlie Hughes Jan 24
Replying to @KrisAnneHall
4/ Congressman Hillhouse present the case of an alien with a title, refusing to renounce it (and thus not being admitted to citizenship) but his children would be "natural born citizens". From the Annuals of Congress House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 2nd Session, Page 1046
Reply Retweet Like
Charlie Hughes Jan 24
Replying to @KrisAnneHall
5/ FYI, the Giles amendment was included to the January 29th, 1795 Naturalization Act.
Reply Retweet Like
Charlie Hughes Jan 24
Replying to @KrisAnneHall
6/ Some members of the Founding generation believed that children born in the United States to alien parents were natural born citizens.
Reply Retweet Like
Mark Bellison Jan 26
Please unroll this thread.
Reply Retweet Like
Thread Reader App Jan 26
Bonjour you can read it here: Thread by : " 1/ In January, 1795 Congress debated a new naturalization act to replace the 1790 act. From the Annuals of […]" Talk to you soon. πŸ€–
Reply Retweet Like