Posted on 08/30/2023 10:02:25 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Kamala Harris, Nikki Haley, and Vivek Ramaswamy are not eligible to serve as president of the United States. Nor are Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Why? They are not “natural born citizens,” which is one of the presidential requirements outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Making that claim, of course, immediately prompts a response of, “Of course they are natural born citizens! What are you, a racist?” But those who are eager to ridicule and condemn such a statement of ineligibility are merely demonstrating their ignorance of the term natural born citizen. What is important, however, is not what television pundits (or “pundints,” as they often incorrectly refer to themselves) believe the term means, but what the Founding Fathers understood the term to mean when they decreed the following:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Probably close to 100 percent of Americans alive today believe the term natural born citizen simply means born in the United States of America. But that is not what the term meant to the authors of the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Our legal system no longer secures the Rights of the People. It's only purpose now is to ensure the power of the government.
Thanks for the ping, BTW.
He was born in Cincinnati, OH. TRUE.
.
You are quibbling about trivial stuff because you cannot address the substance which clearly states our ideas of Natural Born Citizen descend from Vattel.
You are just full of crap. That is why you hide and lie about your sources. The Law of Nations is the outdated term for International Law. International Law does not control the domestic citizenship decisions of any nation. It has no application other than between nations. U.S. citizenship is not decided by a court in the Hague, or by some Swiss guy who died before the Revolutionary War, but wrote a book on The Law of Nations in French.
The judges of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court submitted the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, made in pursuajnce of a resolution of the legislature of the said commonwealth.
Unlike the Samuel Roberts 450-page blockbuster, the Report of the Judges is a scant 38 pages, including Title and Preface. It lists the Book and Page from Ruffhead's Edition of the English Statutes at Large; the Year and Reign of the monarch; and the Title of each statute. Each is followed by a recommendation "To be incorporated" or "Not to be incorporated."
Roberts' book states, "A DIGEST OF SELECT BRITISH STATUTES, comprising those which, according to the report of the judges of the supreme court, made to the legislature, appear to be in force, in Pennsylvania; with some others. With notes and illustrations.-By SAMUEL ROBERTS, president of the courts of common pleas of the fifth judicial district of Pennsylvania."
For Queen Anne, the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania lists statutes 3&4 Anne ONLY. As I advised you previously, the matter on the provided page 26 is under the page 22 heading of 7 ANNE CHAP. 5. A.D. 1708. An Act for naturalizing foreign Protestants. Nothing from 7 Anne was cited or recommended by the Judges of the Supreme Court. Your selection fell under the "some others" which Roberts chose to include in his book. ALL commentary in that book is from Roberts as the Judges' Report contains no commentary. It is a list of statute citation, regnal year, title, and recommendation. The content of page 26 of Roberts' book has no connection to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
This is a page from a Pennsylvania Law book published in 1817, and is described as being based on the report of the entire Pennsylvania Supreme court in 1808.
You can admit it. You didn't even look at the Report of the Judges, so you did not realize it is just a list of cited statutes and a three or four word recommendation, "to be incorporated" or "not to be incorporated."
With all that being said, anything issued prior to the 14th Amendment, and inconsistent with it, would be struck down by the 14th Amendment. It does not matter what was said or who said it.
Then I will take your commentary on this point seriously.
You cannot seriously believe the man could print that part about citizenship without objections from every legal authority in the state, *UNLESS* what he wrote is true.
And the book was reprinted again in 1847 if I remember correctly, so between 1818 and 1847, someone would have pointed out he was *WRONG* if he was in fact wrong which he clearly was not.
What the book says is true, and you just don't want to admit it.
Furthermore, no law by man overrides the law of God. The 14th amendment is nothing but a *NATURALIZATION* law. That's it. That's all.
Ain't that the truth?
Thanks for the ping, BTW.
You are welcome. I hope you are hearty and hale. Good to hear from you again.
I've had this discussion about the naturalization statutes starting with the one in 1934 and ending in the one from 1952. (Also occasionally the Cable act of 1922.)
I point out that they all say "naturalization" in their title, and people say, "well it isn't naturalization."
As I mentioned before, if you read the debates on the 14th amendment, the very congressmen who created it say it is a "naturalization."
Some people cannot grasp that congress can create a law that naturalizes people "at birth." I beat my head against the wall trying to make them understand that just because congress set the law to take effect "at birth", it is *STILL* naturalization.
People just believe what they want to believe.
And while I am at it, i'm going to mention the expatriation act of 1907 which stripped the citizenship from women who married aliens.
I think it deserves a mention because a lot of people are unaware of it.
This is the fallacy Conservatives often believe that Obama was stupid and his policies were dumb, neither is remotely true, he’s a extremely skilled politician and his policies are dangerous
There is no credible evidence that Obama was born outside the USA for people who buy into the idea that Obama isn’t eligible to be POTUS then they believe anything that supports that idea regardless of the facts
Obama didn’t have to be born outside of the U.S. to be ineligible to be POTUS. As was pointed out above, SCOTUS simply didn’t want to prevent the first Black person from running for the presidency.
I disagree emphatically. Obama was a moron who couldn't even pay his own bills. His co-workers at the Chicago Law firm where he worked said he was lazy, and never did any work. He spent his time working on his stupid book that he couldn't even write himself.
His debts were larger than he could pay, and he was near destitution when white liberals noticed him and thought he was a good speaker.
Obama wasn't a "skilled" politician. Without a teleprompter he stumbled all over himself. He was good at reading and enunciating stuff other people wrote for him.
His college grades are terrible, else they would have been shoving them in our faces to show how smart he was.
He was only made to look like a skilled politician by the media-liars who carried his water. The plain truth is the man is stupid and his enactment of stupid policies had nothing to do with brilliance, but were instead what his backers wanted him to do.
There is no credible evidence that Obama was born outside the USA for people who buy into the idea that Obama...
There is no credible evidence that he was born *IN* the USA. Putting out a fake birth certificate tends to indicate he was not. The vast majority of Americans can produce a real one.
Was there any case the Supreme Court was asked to rule on, did any case get filed in Federal Court over the issue.
To my knowledge the answer is no to both questions, meaning it’s just speculation on your part, since no court was ever asked to rule on the case.
BTW, Obama produced a birth certificate to prove his birth in Hawaii.
What that birth certificate real, I certainly have my doubts, but like most of the speculation about Obama’s birthplace, people believe whatever confirms their bias.
If you believe Obama was born outside the USA, you believe the birth certificate is fake, if you believe Obama was born in Hawaii then it was a real birth certificate.
The point is, Obama was a two term POTUS, nothing will ever change that, instead of arguing over where he was born which is pointless, trying to stop his political agenda is much more important.
Obama’s ability to give a speech that fired up his supporters to work really hard for him is a political skill that few people possess.
You don’t recognize his political skills and intelligence because you hate him and continually underestimate him.
It’s the exact same thing except totally opposite personalities, those who are 100% supportive of Trump act the same way that 100% Obama supporters do.
To liberals Trump is the devil, to Trump loyalists, Obama is the devil.
Both sides fail to recognize the political skills and intelligence of the other person.
Trump is a brilliant politician so is Obama, both are incredibly smart.
Our side would be far better off if we recognized the obivious and not see things thru emotion.
They are liberals. They get fired up just because he's black. His speeches are crap, but liberals love him because he's black.
You don’t recognize his political skills and intelligence because you hate him and continually underestimate him.
I don't underestimate him, he's just a street con man. He doesn't have any skills or intelligence, he just does what street con men do.
Both sides fail to recognize the political skills and intelligence of the other person.
Yeah, a Billionaire versus a two bit lazy street hustler who couldn't even pay his bills before he got into politics.
Biden is a complete idiot, yet the Democrats picked him too. And who made Biden prominent? Dumb Obama.
Shows what good judgement that imbecile has.
You have 100% proven my point.
Just make this comparison, Obama had Eric Holder running the justice system, who described himself as Obama’s wingman.
How much different would the political landscape be if Trump as an AG that acted the way Eric Holder did, better yet what if Trump had an AG that acted the way Merrick Garland has done. Trump had Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr.
Would Hillary Clinton be in prison, would she have faced criminal charges, etc.
Obama was not only politically brilliant but was perfectly willing to use his political power against his political enemies to achieve his goals.
Even if they renounced their citizenship and became citizens of the USA, the government of their former homeland could still try to demand they return. I don’t think it’s sensible to think that the laws of our land are conditional on the actions of foreign governments that are outside of our control.
You are going to have to do a better job explaining how I 100% proved your point. I don't see it.
Unquestionably they can draft their own.
This statement further confirms my point, you don’t see it, which in itself proves the point.
Trying to explain it is pointless either you get it and nothing anyone says will change your mind.
Obama is a moron. He is an untalented f@ggot crack smoker who just happened to be able to read a teleprompter decently, and liberals fell in love with him because he is black.
He was a failure at everything he has ever done in his life until he started winning crooked elections in Chicago.
And that still wasn't him.
“Do you think foreign governments can draft American citizens?”
What, do you think if a foreign government sent a draft notice to an American citizen that the notice would burst into flames or something?
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.