Posted on 08/10/2024 2:40:45 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
This morning the Defendants in The 134 PAC's voter intimidation lawsuit in Fort Worth, added Jane Nelson, the Texas Secretary of State, as a Cross-Defendant. These local activists, sued Secretary Nelson to keep Kamala Harris and Nicole Shanahan off the Presidential ballot in Texas because, they claim, neither of them are "natural born citizens" and therefore cannot appear on any state's ballot for the Presidential election. If Secretary Nelson does not remove them from the ballot, they also seek Secretary Nelson's removal from office, criminal prosecution and damages.
(Excerpt) Read more at the134pac.org ...
Not helpful. The Courts have already made up their mind on this issue, and of course it is the sort of stupid decision that courts are good at.
Close, but not quite.
If you are born a citizen of another country, you are subject to those laws so long as you claim citizenship in that country (regardless of where you live).
Another country cannot impose citizenship on you. It has no legal authority to do so.
Citizenship is a privilege for people coming from other countries, not a right.
I hate to agree with you on this, but I think you have it exactly correct.
For the record, I believe that Kamala Harris qualifies as a natural born citizen. My position on this matter has remained consistent over the past 16 years or so that it has been an issue.
Excellent summation!
Wouldn't surprise me if they were part of the local NBC group..
Maybe they're finally putting their money where their mouths are........LOL!
Where in the Constitution does it define these three classes of citizens?
There aren't really three. "Native born" is now the same thing as "naturalized" according to the 14th amendment.
Just being born here without your parents being citizens makes you naturalized under the 14th amendment.
Supreme Court precedent: Throughout U.S. history, to the present day, the Supreme Court’s majority opinions have never used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to persons born in the United States, of a non-U.S.-citizen parent. Under some circumstances, such a person might be regarded as a citizen, but the Supreme Court has never regarded any such person as a natural born citizen. Whenever an Opinion of the Supreme Court referred to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents (see, for example, Perkins v. Elg and Kwock Jan Fat v. White).
In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, to a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, does not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. Later in U.S. history, American policy would extend U.S. citizenship, at birth, to all U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. Even though the criteria for citizenship at birth has evolved, it appears that natural born citizenship has a fixed meaning which does not change over time. If, at any time in U.S. history, the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen fathers were not U.S. citizens at birth, such children cannot be natural born citizens.
In Minor v. Happersett (1875), the Supreme Court defined two classes of children. The first class consists of children each of whom was born in a country, of parents who are citizens of that country. All other native-born chidren belong to the second class:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1875).
The Court used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to members of the first class. The Court doubted whether members of the second class were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens. Since a child acquires “natural born citizen” status only at birth, and since natural born citizens are “distinguished from” aliens or foreigners, it appears that natural born citizens are persons who, when born, are not alien or foreigner, i.e., are not citizens or subjects of any foreign country.
Yes, it has been adjudicated that a child born of legal residents is a natural born citizen. Wong v Ark
That is because he didn’t make if further. Had he become the candidate, it would have been a different story.
Well that makes perfect sense. For the longest time, I didn't realize that the people who debated the 14th amendment regarded it as a "naturalization" process. They say so in the debates, which you can read online.
But let me tell you, they are looooong and boring.
So just being born here makes you a citizen under the 14th amendment, and the people who wrote it *SAY* it is "naturalization."
Yeah, Obama would have never won in 2012 without all this "Birther" stuff happening. Mitt Romney was just too good of a candidate to lose, but because of all this "Birther" stuff, he lost.
Bad idea. I doubt a single court at any level will agree with that.
When you say "arms" do you have to mention that "arms" have bullets?
Isn't the meaning inherent in the word "arms"?
When the founders switched the term from "Subject" to "Citizen", that word "Citizen" told us where they got the definition from.
Only place in the world at that time which used the word "Citizen" was Switzerland.
Every other place in the world used "Subject."
So why would we suddenly start using the Swiss word "Citizen", when we have always used the good old English "Subject"?
It is a DEMOCRAT organization filing the suit.
You were here in 2016. I assume you were aware of the bleep show Birther FReepers were having on Cruz being a Canadian and not a NBC.
So if Cruz had gone further - he would have met resistance from Repubs. In fact, it was the NBC pushback from the beginning of his run that did the damage.
Pushback from Republicans.
They were wrong then. And they are wrong now.
You mean you just parrot what "experts" have told you rather than doing some research and getting to the bottom of it yourself.
You and the entire legal community simply rely on others to tell you what to think.
There is a *LOT* of evidence which contradicts what is the dominant opinion in the legal system. That evidence shouldn't even exist if they were correct, but it does, and they never address it.
Not going to gain anything.
The courts have ruled in favor of jus soli - Jus soli is a Latin phrase that means “right of the soil” and is a rule of law that determines a person’s nationality or citizenship based on their birthplace.
You have been misinformed. The holding in Wong Kim Ark designates him as a "citizen." It never says "natural born citizen."
I've argued this point for over a decade. It's only two more words, but the court did not add them. They deliberately left out "natural born" in calling Wong Kim Ark a "citizen", and they make it clear that he is only a citizen because of the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment citizenship is "naturalization at birth."
Me in 2008, in 2016 I originally supported Cruz and was souring on him when Trump joined and I immediately chose Trump. Realize that Cruz first said he was not eligible, then changed his mind and we only learned more about why he was ineligible laterz. This all still matters, maybe just to voters for the moment.
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.