Harris, Haley, and Ramaswamy Cannot Be President

The Post Email ^ | August 29, 2023 | Don Frederick

[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.

[woodpusher]

I don’t care what the Supreme Court says, what the Senate says, what some legal journalist says, it is what is meant by the writers of the Constitution....

I see you do not know the first thing about law. You are about as ignorant of the topic as someone can get.

Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 US 511, 519 (1993), Scalia, J., concurring

The greatest defect of legislative history is its illegitimacy.

We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators. As the Court said in 1844: "The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself...." Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24 (emphasis added). But not the least of the defects of legislative history is its indeterminacy. If one were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one could hardly find a more promising candidate than legislative history. And the present case nicely proves that point.

Judge Harold Leventhal used to describe the use of legislative history as the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one's friends.

The purported intent of the lawgiver is irrelevant if the actual words of the law have a clear meaning. The words prevail even where the lawgiver's words are contrary to his intent. This is even so with legislation where the legislators voted to pass legislation. The words are ratified or passed into law, the intent is not.

Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 86, 108-09 (1925)

The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.

"A Matter of Interpretation," Federal Courts and the Law, by Antonin Scalia, 1997. This book contains an essay by Antonin Scalia and responses to that essay by professors Ronald Dworkin, Mary Ann Glendon, Laurence Tribe, and Gordon Wood. There is a final response by Antonin Scalia.

Laurence Tribe, pp. 65-6

Let me begin with my principal area of agreement with Justice Scalia. Like him, I believe that when we ask what a legal text means — what it requires of us, what it permits us to do, and what it forbids — we ought not to be inquiring (except perhaps very peripherally) into the ideas, intentions, or expectations subjectively held by whatever particular persons were, as a historical matter, involved in drafting, promulgating, or ratifying the text in question. To be sure, those matters, when reliably ascertainable, might shed some light on otherwise ambiguous or perplexing words or phrases - by pointing us, as readers, toward the linguistic frame of reference within which the people to whom those words or phrases were addressed would have "translated" and thus understood them. But such thoughts and beliefs can never substitute for what was in fact enacted as law. Like Justice Scalia, I never cease to be amazed by the arguments of judges, lawyers, or others who proceed as though legal texts were little more than interesting documentary evidence of what some lawgiver had in mind. And, like the justice, I find little to commend the proposition that anyone ought, in any circumstances I can imagine, to feel legally bound to obey another's mere wish or thought, or legally bound to act in accord with another's mere hope or fear.

Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. 9, 24 (1845)

In expounding this law, the judgment of the Court cannot in any degree be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself, and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.

United States v Union Pacific Railroad Company, 91 U.S. 72 (1875)

In construing an act of Congress, we are not at liberty to recur to the views of individual members in debate nor to consider the motives which influenced them to vote for or against its passage. The act itself speaks the will of Congress, and this is to be ascertained from the language used. But courts, in construing a statute, may with propriety recur to the history of the times when it was passed, and this is frequently necessary in order to ascertain the reason as well as the meaning of particular provisions in it. Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 24; Preston v. Browder, 1 Wheat. 115, 120 [argument of counsel -- omitted].

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 254 (1901)

In expounding this law, the judgment of the Court cannot in any degree be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself, and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 658-59:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established. In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying: "Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide." 6 U. S. 2 Cranch 64, 6 U. S. 119.

In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said: "It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

The principle of English common law regarding citizenship carried on for three centuries before independence, and it continued after independence, with all thirteen original states explicitly adopting so much of the English common law as was not inconsistent with the Constitution, either in their state constitution or state statute law.

The law is not determined by wingnuts on the internet.

[Fury]

Re: 310 where Stanton writes:

"Foreigners who have voted at our elections are regarded as having exercised a franchise that subjects them to military duty. Declaration of intention to become naturalized is not of itself sufficient to prevent their taking advantage of their alienage, but a man who votes must bear arms."

It sounds like there was an interesting backstory to Edward Salomon's communication to Secretary Stanton regarding foreign born residents who had declared their intention to become citizens of the US. Perhaps there was a move to make foreign born residents exempt from military service. Will have to look into that.

Stanton was not correct - a declaration of intention to become a citizen was indeed enough to subject a male to possible military service - voting was not a criteria for possible service:

"...and persons of foreign birth who shall have declared on oath their intention to become citizens under and in pursuance liable of the laws thereof, between the ages of twenty and forty-five years, except as hereinafter excepted, are hereby declared to constitute the national forces, and shall be liable to perform military duty in the service of the United States when called out by the President for that purpose ."
-see Enrollment Act of 1863 (12 Stat. 731)

[odawg]

“The law is not determined by wingnuts on the internet.”

Were the ones who wrote the Naturalization Act of 1790 wingnuts???

You still think you are arguing with me, but you are arguing with the Naturalization Act of 1790, which defines what a natural born citizen is by the people who wrote the Constitution.

I see you still, still avoid the Act of 1790 with its definition of a natural born citizen about like a vampire running from the rising sun.

Again, again, I was taught that all my life, including college, my mother said that was what she was taught. How could generations of Americans be so wrong. How could histoy professors with doctorates get it so wrong.

[woodpusher]

It sounds like there was an interesting backstory to Edward Salomon's communication to Secretary Stanton regarding foreign born residents who had declared their intention to become citizens of the US. Perhaps there was a move to make foreign born residents exempt from military service. Will have to look into that.

There was certainly a backstory. Conscription before the formal draft worked by having the Federal government give each state a quota to fill. Some states desired to fill their quota with non-citizens, in preference to sending their own home grown boys.

The draft was not very popular and led to the largest riot in American history. Part of the U.S. Army went from Gettysburg to NYC, with naval ships joining in to bombard downtown NYC. Blacks were hanged from street lamps, later the subject of a Billie Holliday song, Strange Fruit.

It would appear there were no definitive laws to determine who was eligible to be drafted. There was no previous draft to legislate. However, there is no doubt that resident foreign nationals were drafted as a matter of executive discretion.

Stanton was not correct - a declaration of intention to become a citizen was indeed enough to subject a male to possible military service - voting was not a criteria for possible service:

"...and persons of foreign birth who shall have declared on oath their intention to become citizens under and in pursuance liable of the laws thereof, between the ages of twenty and forty-five years, except as hereinafter excepted, are hereby declared to constitute the national forces, and shall be liable to perform military duty in the service of the United States when called out by the President for that purpose ."

-see Enrollment Act of 1863 (12 Stat. 731)

Stanton's letter was of August 12, 1862, and the Act of 1863 at 12 Stat. 731 was of March 3, 1863. In 1862, they sort of made it up as they went along, as a matter of executive discretion. The draft of 1862 was made under the Militia Act of March 2, 1795, as amended by the Militia Act of July 17, 1862.

A declaration of intent to become a citizen was equally subjective as a right to vote. Regarding nationality, a declaration of intent means nothing. The law of 1863 was objectionable on the grounds an alien could be drafted to fight against the country of his citizenship (and the lack of an actual draft law).

Some states conferred the right to vote upon a declaration of intent. The argument for draftability was that it made them citizens of the state. At the time there was no constitutional definition of a citizen of the United States, and many thought one could be a citizen of a state without being a citizen of the United States.

James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, University of Illinois Press, 1951, pp. 254-55:

The Federal statutes contained, in 1862, no specific provision for a draft. Notwithstanding this, Federal drafts were conducted in various States in that year. Even where the draft of this year was conducted uioon State authority, this was done under the President's order. It is terefore apparent that the first draft for the raising of Federal troops ever conducted in our history under the Constitution was a presidential draft. It was instituted by rules and regulations which the President promulgated through the War Department upon authority only inferentially from an act of Congress. This was a truly remarkable extension of executive power in a democratic state, and the legality of the draft of 1862 was a matter of grave question in the minds of many thoughtful men.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llsl//llsl-c3/llsl-c3.pdf

1 Stat. 424, February 28, 1795 [pdf pg 84]

An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; and to repeal the Act now in force for those purposes.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llsl//llsl-c37/llsl-c37.pdf

12 Stat. 597, July 17, 1862 [pdf page 343]

An Act to amend the Act calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel Invasions, approved February twenty-eight, seventeen hundred and ninety-five, and the Acts amendatory thereof, and for other Purposes.

[woodpusher]

“The law is not determined by wingnuts on the internet.”

Were the ones who wrote the Naturalization Act of 1790 wingnuts???

You are a wingnut. What you say is wacko dingbatism. Were the Framers who repealed the Act of 1790 in 1795 wingnuts?

You still think you are arguing with me, but you are arguing with the Naturalization Act of 1790, which defines what a natural born citizen is by the people who wrote the Constitution.

You remain unable to quote the definition of natural born citizen which is nowhere to be found in the Act of 1790.

I am not arguoing with you. You are an idiot. I am burying your bullcrap. You are helping me demonstrate how idiotic your position is. You may earn a participation prize.

I see you still, still avoid the Act of 1790 with its definition of a natural born citizen about like a vampire running from the rising sun.

I QUOTED the Act of 1790 in its entirety at #318, including the sidenotes, and challenged you to quote the nonexistent definition of natural born citizen. You still haven't been able to find it. You do have a vivid imagination though.

Again, again, I was taught that all my life, including college, my mother said that was what she was taught. How could generations of Americans be so wrong. How could histoy professors with doctorates get it so wrong.

Sounds like the folks the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of in Buck v. Bell.

You remind me of the McCain birther case filing in Robinson v. Bowen et al, CAND (28 Aug 2008) Doc 27, page 4, footnote 2:

According to the plaintiff, Ambassador Keyes believes that any citizen of the United States born through natural procreative means (but not one born by caesarean section) is a “natural-born citizen” eligible to hold the Office of President.

You exhibit the same sort of stellar intellect coupled with great conviction. I thought the lunacy would end after 2008 but nope, it's 2023 and the loonies are still at it.

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

Say it along with John Jay. A "natural born citizen." Say it to yourself over and over, and stress the word born.

"natural born citizen"
"natural born citizen"
"natural born citizen"

[odawg]

“Were the Framers who repealed the Act of 1790 in 1795 wingnuts?”

Now, now, don’t get carried away with your hysterical venom and try to distract from the issue.

Congress, under the Constitution, has the right to fashion immigration law.

The fact that they changed it has absolutely nothing to do with the inclusion of the term natural born into the Constitution. I cite it merely because it contains the supposedly never defined term of what constitutes a natural born citizen.

“You remain unable to quote the definition of natural born citizen which is nowhere to be found in the Act of 1790.”

Well, here it is:

“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. 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...”

You see??? The children of citizens... “The children of citizens...shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

I know you are blinded by hysteria, for some reason, but any other person in the country would recognize a direct definition of a natural born citizen. That is why generations of Americans were taught just that.

By the way, Wikipedia use to have that included in their entry of the Act, but they don’t anymore. Wonder why?

Now -— Acknowledge the Act of Naturalization of 1790.

I don’t know why you keep posting the letter from Washington. He was asking for only natural born citizens in his administration. Not just citizens, natural born citizens.

[apocalypto]

bump

[woodpusher]

Congress, under the Constitution, has the right to fashion immigration law.

The fact that they changed it has absolutely nothing to do with the inclusion of the term natural born into the Constitution.

The term natural born citizen was inserted into the Constitution before the Senate and the House of Representatives existed. Its insertion definitely had nothing to do with Congress.

The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 provided that "Congress shall have power... To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States". You can always try reading the Constitution for the first time.

“You remain unable to quote the definition of natural born citizen which is nowhere to be found in the Act of 1790.”

Well, here it is:

“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. 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...”

You see??? The children of citizens... “The children of citizens...shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

I see that you are a natural born idiot, but I already knew that.

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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.”

So you define natural born citizen as only children that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States. Gee, and then it says they shall be considered as natural born Citizens." And that is conditional upon satisfying further specified conditions. And you call that a definition of natural born citizen. You are nuts. Seek help.

I see quite clearly that CANNOT be the definition of the term natural born citizen, or anything else. It pertains ONLY to children "that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States."

The vast majority of natural born citizens are born right here in the USA. None are part of what you claim to be the definition of natural born citizen. Good show, old chap.

House of Representatives, 75th Congress, 1st Session, Report 1303

CITIZENSHIP OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF PERSONS BORN IN THE CANAL ZONE OR REPUBLIC OF PANAMA

July 26, 1937.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Schulte, from the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization submitted the folowing

REPORT

[To accompany S. 2416]

[...]

GENERAL INFORMATION

The necessity for this legislation is apparent because the citizenship of persons born in the Canal Zone of American parents, has never been defined either by Constitution, treaty, or congressional enactment. This bill would definitely establish the certain classes entitled to citizenship.

[...]

However did it come to pass that, as of July 1937, "the citizenship of persons born in the Canal Zone of American parents, has never been defined either by Constitution, treaty, or congressional enactment."

However could that be? I guess they had never studied the law according to odawg.

I know you are blinded by hysteria, for some reason, but any other person in the country would recognize a direct definition of a natural born citizen.

I know you are handicapped by having only two functioning brain cells, one to inhale and one to exhale, but only a natural born idiot would recognize that as a DEFINITION of anything at all.

S. RES. 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen

[Excerpt]

"Whereas the term “natural born Citizen”, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;"

It sure looks like the U.S. Senate stated that there is no definition in the Constitution of the United States.

14A: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep401815/

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 816 (1971)

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under constitutional challenge here, primarily on Fifth Amendment due process grounds, but also on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, is § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 236, 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(b).

Section 301(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), defines those persons who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Paragraph (7) of § 301(a) includes in that definition a person born abroad “of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States” who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301(b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under § 301(a)(7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years.

8 U.S.C. § 1401

§1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

- - - - -

Now -— Acknowledge the Act of Naturalization of 1790.

I quoted it to you in full at my #138. Learn to read. The margin note of 1 Stat. 103 still states, "Repealed by act of January 20, 1795, ch. 20." It was repealed over two and a quarter centuries ago.

I don’t know why you keep posting the letter from Washington. He was asking for only natural born citizens in his administration.

No, moron, that letter is FROM John Jay TO George Washington. Learn to read.

Neither Jay nor Washington had an administration at the time.

The expressed concern was not of the President needing to be a "natural born citizen," (to use Jay's underscore emphasis) but of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces—"and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen." At the time of the letter, it had not yet been decided to have the President also act as the Commander-in-Chief. Do you ever read something before giving your expert opinion, or do you always decide to just monkey pound on your keyboard and let it rip?

Say it along with John Jay. A "natural born citizen." Say it to yourself over and over, and stress the word born.

"natural born citizen"
"natural born citizen"
"natural born citizen"

[odawg]

“So you define natural born citizen as only children that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States. Gee, and then it says they shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” And that is conditional upon satisfying further specified conditions. And you call that a definition of natural born citizen. You are nuts. Seek help.”

Wow, ust wow!!! And you call me an idiot.

You have no reading comprehension whatsoever. Evidently, you are an immigrant, which is the reason you have your panties in a wad.

No, I have not defined natural born citizen at all. The Act does.

And no, I never said that “only” children born overseas can be natural born citizen. The Act does not say that. I have seen that before argument here before, it must have been you.

The Act plainly says that children born overseas of citizen parents are ALSO natural born citizens, not ONLY. For crying out loud, you must be stupid.

Embedded within the Act is the definiton of a natural born citizen. It is applied to the case of children born overseas of citizen parents. That makes them ALSO, NOT ONLY, natural born citizens.

You mean you think that the writers of the Constitution would place in the document a stipulation for being president that only applies to people born ovrseas? That is absolute insanity.

Also, don’t post me that long chain of crap. I don’t read it, it is useless. And, again, that letter from Washington that defeats your own argument.

[DiogenesLamp]

As previously mentioned, if you drag up any source prior to the 14th Amendment, anything inconsistent with the 14th Amendment is struck down by the provision of the Constitution.

Disagree. The 14th does not rewrite "natural born citizen" because "natural born citizen" is an act of God, and cannot be overwritten by a naturalization act like the 14th amendment.

I won't even look at "evidence" that isn't from around the framing era.

[DiogenesLamp]

If a foreign nation claims one as its citizen, they have every right to force their citizen into compulsory military service if he comes within their jurisdiction.

They have every right to order him back home for such a purpose, from anywhere in the world, just as we do too.

[DiogenesLamp]

Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)

I see "1872" and I think "hearsay."

Skip.

[woodpusher]

The 14th does not rewrite "natural born citizen" because "natural born citizen" is an act of God, and cannot be overwritten by a naturalization act like the 14th amendment.

God forgot to sign it so that does not count. You forgot to write it in red ink, so it's at best the word of doG.

The Constitution is written in terms of the English common law. The English judges were not God either.

The Constitution contains no definition of natural born citizen and never has.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-resolution/511/text

S. RES. 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen

[Excerpt]

"Whereas the term “natural born Citizen”, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;"

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 662-63:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

[woodpusher]

They have every right to order him back home for such a purpose, from anywhere in the world, just as we do too.

If he is outside their jurisdiction, they can order him all they want.

[woodpusher]

Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)
I see "1872" and I think "hearsay."

First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee, 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502, paragraph 40, footnotes omitted:

“Simply put, subjective good faith no longer provides the safe harbor it once did.” “There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11.”

[DiogenesLamp]

The Constitution is written in terms of the English common law

No it isn't. There is no provision in English law that allows a Republic. English Law is monarchical law, and anything incompatible with monarchy is incompatible with English law.

Feudal laws tying men to the land were all excised from our system.

[DiogenesLamp]

If he is outside their jurisdiction, they can order him all they want.

And he can face the consequences when they finally get their hands on him.

If the US recognizes extradition to their country, they can drag him back under a criminal complaint.

[HapaxLegamenon]

You are correct. I don’t get the original poster’s point.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

"natural born citizen" is an act of God

Since when?

I'm being serious, because you're giving divine weight to something which can be undone by acts of man.

A natural-born citizen can still voluntarily relinquish their own citizenship.

Perhaps it would be best to lay off the hyperbole, lest your arguments be tainted with absurdities. (After all, I would hesitate to ascribe ideas about God with the Framers in general, given how many followed or were influenced by the unbiblical philosophy of Deism).