Posted on 09/20/2020 1:07:26 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
You know, as an Attorney, you’d lose every time. As it’s said in the courts...the law is technical.
You ran through the same crap on the last few threads like this and its the same nonsense: people give you concrete answers, you dismiss them with flimsy hand waving.
Each example given was a real one that I personally was familiar with. As far as ‘our intelligence services aren’t that stupid’, well, they would beg to differ. Something as trivial as a person’s mother being born in Windsor, Ontario and not 200 yards across the bridge was enough for them. There’s a reason for that. You go figure it out.
And no, you didn’t win, you got lost again in the maze of your own flighty arguments.
Not only is Kamala Harris not a “natural born citizen”, she isn’t even a citizen at all in the eyes of not just a couple of “bitter enders” - a pre-eminent law professor at one of the best schools in America, and the former Attorney General of the United States under Ronald Reagan - but a significant fraction of the citizenry.
Nope. I win. On the evidence and the law.
“The ballots are already printed in every state. Too late to pick replacements!!!!”
Rules don’t apply to DemocRATS. Besides better to run against Kommie-la than her possible replacements of Hitlery or Mooch.
And Obama was elected President and served 8 years.
Congratulations on being right.
I would guess that it is much more difficult to extradite a person to the U.S. from another country if that person is a citizen of that country, regardless of whether they hold U.S. citizenship.
It seems to me that the whole point of singling out one single office in the country for special treatment has a meaning. I propose that meaning is to reduce if not eliminate persons from holding that office who might have divided loyalties. If a person's mother is a British citizen and that person's father is a German citizen, then it would not surprise me at all if the person himself felt loyalties to those countries.
I have one grandson who has dual citizenship. His mother insists that he is eligible to be President. I do not.
To those who think it would not be "fair" to eliminate Obama or Kamala from eligibility to be President, I think you need to consider whether it is fair to 300 million citizens to introduce doubt about the loyalty of a President.
Old Jezebel, got bit big time paving the way for lord McCain ... and she got Be-right-back ... Obama taking the position she believed she was destined to have and hold....
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-110sres511ats/pdf/BILLS-110sres511ats.pdf
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
APRIL 10, 2008
III
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
APRIL 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
APRIL 30, 2008 Considered and agreed to
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;
Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term ap- pears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Con- stitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of chil- dren born to Americans serving in the military nor to
Suppose for a moment that the issue is not whether or not Kamala is a citizen of the U.S., but whether Kamala is a citizen of a foreign country.
Everybody keeps saying, "He's a citizen. She's a citizen." Nobody seems to reflect on what it means to be a citizen of a foreign country while being Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military.
Yeah, but, he was NOT a natural born US citizen, .... why else would the Senate feel the need to resolve him to be eligible for the office of president...
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-110sres511ats/pdf/BILLS-110sres511ats.pdf
Sad part of this saga, is too many claiming to be on the ‘right’ are willingly ignorant on the meaning ... and some are like cement minded, they simply do not care ... probably because they birthed their child on foreign soil ...
Hillry Clinton spawned the ‘birther’ movement ... some lawyer out of PA... was the first to ‘question’ Obama’s bonafides... Now to be sure... Donald Trump picked up on the noise, and finally got Obama’s servants to produce a ‘birth certificate’ ...
When I reflect on it I don't think it means anything. As I've said many times, every country decides who its citizens are.
Xi Jingping could make you a Chinese citizen tomorrow. Would that change your allegiance or impact your ability to command US troops?
I've yet to hear why being a dual citizen by accident of birth would have any impact on someone's loyalty.
I don't understand why you think your birth circumstances determine your values.
By your logic, if your parents had moved to Germany or the UK when they were one, grew up there and indoctrinated you in the glories of those countries they wouldn't necessarily be a threat.
On the other hand, if your parents left Germany and decided the US was a better place to live, emigrated here and raised you to love this country you're still unreliable by virtue of German law which says you're a citizen.
You're letting German lawmakers determine who's eligible to be President.
History is full of the marriages among the royal families of Europe for the simple reason that people are reluctant to make war on their mother's nephews.
And to refer to the nationality of one's parents as an "accident of birth" sounds vaguely reminiscent of "it takes a village". Parents instill values in their children.
I don't follow your logic there at all. Obama was just such a person; raised in a foreign country. Regardless of his parentage or citizenship he didn't belong in the White House.
I certainly do question the loyalty of Obama. I expect the President to put America first. I don't think Obama did. I think similarly about Supreme Court Justices who think their job is to shop for a better constitution in foreign nations when it is their job to preserve, protect, and defend ours.
Natural Born Citizenship, as I would define it, is not a guarantee of loyalty, It is simply a filter for the most obvious source of problems.
I see the Natural Born Citizen requirement as being very similar to "conflict of interest" policies at companies for which I have worked.
Years ago I worked as an engineer for a group which had a very expensive system which needed an expensive, heavy repair part. At the time there was a nationwide shipping strike going on. It seemed like it was going to take forever to get our system back up.
As luck would have it, I had a brother who worked in the freight business. I told my boss that I thought we could use him to find a way to get the part.
Because my brother stood to profit from helping my company I was very careful to inform several levels of management about what we proposed doing so that I wouldn't be accused of impropriety later.
I have explained to people over the years that "conflict of interest" doesn't mean anybody did anything wrong. It simply means that the conflict must be managed properly; as I did.
Having parents born in a foreign country creates a conflict of interest for a President. It doesn't mean that the person did anything wrong. It doesn't mean that the person is or would be disloyal. It simply means that there is a conflict of interests.
The "management" of our country is the Constitution and the Constitution manages this particular source of conflict of interest by excluding people with such a conflict from holding the office of President. Just that one office. I don't see anything unreasonable about managing the situation this way.
In old Europe royal lines of succession determined who the rulers were.
In the US, the voters do.
Just because someone is eligible to be President doesn't mean we can't evaluate their family backgrounds when voting.
I think you do understand my logic.
We voters decide who we want as President, and just because someone's mother may have been a foreign citizen that's way, way down the list of things we consider when choosing our leader.
We can evaluate maturity also, but the rule is 35 years of age.
I didn't say I didn't understand it. I said I didn't follow it. Just as with the age requirement for President, there will be plenty of people older than 35 who are totally unfit. That does not negate the value of the age requirement.
It seems to me that would be an argument in favor of excluding only "naturalized citizens".
Basing eligibility on one's parentage has no value and is un-American.
We value the individual and their values. We aren't a monarchy where your qualification to govern is based on the family you were born into.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.