Posted on 08/11/2020 7:30:27 PM PDT by captain_dave
Do you concede that her parents were ALIENS, as defined by law, at the time of her birth and that her parents weren't even U.S. citizens??
...she can be president.
No, she cannot be President of the United States.
She can be president of the Chess Club.
Your 14th Amendment arguments are futile, unless you believe she was a slave in the past needing citizenship status with all inherent rights.
Is that what you believe?
“The case must be pretty damning to the natural born citizen antagonist’s argument, don’t you think?”
I get the feeling in Obama’s case, they had a cart horse routine. They got him into dual citizenship, sealed his birth information in England, still is, and hey had a fire that destroyed his American cert until both the short and long forms could be mysteriously recovered from the ashes.
Course, both had misinformation on them inconsistent with the other, and the name of the birthing hospital wasn’t the correct name until ti changed 17 years after Obama’s birth. It was called something else and should have had the correct name for official documents. (Didn’t) So it’s obvious they cooked them up in time to keep him in office. And screwed that up.
Tack that on to his surrendering his law license to keep from being prosecuted for lying on his bar exam and that his relatives admitted they were in attendance of his birth at Queen’s General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, two days before his recorded birth in Hawaii, and the hits just keep coming. Maternal grandmother and grandaunt.
You ask how they could get away with it? In those days a relative could call the records people and tell them a birth had happened and they would make the cert for them and place it on file. No questions asked if enough of the information was given. Life is easy in Hawaii...hang loose, broda, and mahalo nui loa.
rwood
...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.
You make the case in your own reply...
TWO citizen parents. Plural, not singular.
Her parents weren't citizens at the time of her birth thus she falls under USC 8 laws (uniform rule) of naturalization.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: The Congress shall have Power . . . To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...
A natural born citizen doesn't require such a law (rule) to become a citizen.
Thanks for that!
I asked no such thing.
Or did you intend that as a rhetorical question?
/rhetorical question
The case must be pretty damning to the natural born citizen antagonist’s argument, don’t you think?
Nothing you wrote answers my question.
This discussion as to the definition of natural born citizen has been going on for a long time. Long before we were even born. The 14th amendment defines citizen birth right as being born in US territory or in a state. The only thing you have displayed for me has been court rulings that have not generated a law, a federal title, or an amendment, just a legal determination, and in some cases a summary disposition. There is no federal law that determines what a natural born citizen is and the only defining reference to citizenship determination practiced is in the 14th amendment. If anyone wishes to challenge this in court, this may, or may not, be upheld and may even have to go to the supreme court again who may not want to hear it...again. Either way, it is only in the courts and I know of no law within the confines of the federal law that determines the citizenship for basis of an election to POTUS except the 14th.
This has been challenged a number of times, Obama, Cruz and McCain in the latter days and there have been five presidents that would have been questioned for this same reason: Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover. Good luck on your efforts. I don’t like Harris either, but this way is not going to work and hasn’t for a lot of years with many different participants.
rwood
Yes but then there's the next three sentences: "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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
So you may doubt that Harris is a natural-born citizen based on her parentage but so what? Your doubts don't make her unqualified. Chief Justice Waite made it clear it was not his purpose with this decision to end your doubts or settle the matter one way or the other.
A natural born citizen doesn't require such a law (rule) to become a citizen.
So many people claim. Unfortunately there is not a court decision that backs it up.
...the only defining reference to citizenship determination practiced is in the 14th amendment.
You obviously won't accept Minor v. Happersett, or any other case it seems, as having such a defining reference so I won't even bother with that since you are clearly determined to ignore it.
And, once again, you keep bringing up the 14th Amendment and applying it in a manner for which it was not intended.
So many people claim. Unfortunately there is not a court decision that backs it up.
Then you can surely explain how someone does become a natural born citizen, can't you?
There should be something besides a court decision that explains how such citizenship is gained or else the framers of the Constitution would have had no reference for its inclusion.
By being born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, as the 14th Amendment says. The Constitution identifies two forms on citizenship, natural born and naturalized. If you're not one then you're the other.
And of course you will disagree with me. So what? Your opinion is neither more valid than mine or less valid. The opinion that matters is that of the courts, and so far they haven't definitively weighed in.
There should be something besides a court decision that explains how such citizenship is gained or else the framers of the Constitution would have had no reference for its inclusion.
The Constitution is the basis for our laws and the courts interpret it. Those are all that matter. Blackstone's opinion or Vattel's opinion or your opinion or my opinion, or even the founder's opinion, is not law. According to the 14th Amendment and current federal law Harris became a citizen at birth. Natural-born citizen. That stands unless the courts say otherwise.
This was what he was talking about to which there was no doubt!
...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.
You can't leave out what he said was already clearly decided.
No doubt at all. Agree with you 100%; a person born in the U.S. of two citizen parents is most definitely a natural-born citizen. But Chief Justice Waite did not say that that was the only definition of natural-born citizen. He clearly stated that people believe that natural-born citizenship status is passed on through other circumstances, and while people may doubt that that is true it was not the intent of the court to settle those doubts. So you have identified one way of becoming a natural-born citizen. The question is whether it is the only one. The answer is that the courts have not said.
What people believe is not the law.
And he did state what a natural born citizen was and that there was no doubt about that.
Not necessarily the law, that is true. You believe Harris is not a natural-born citizen, Harris believes she is. One of you is right and the question is which? The answer is unknown, not until the courts decide.
And he did state what a natural born citizen was and that there was no doubt about that.
And again he also said that may or may not be the only definition of natural born citizenship, and that it was not the purpose of the court to answer that question as part of the court's decision.
Yet STILL, no matter how hard you deny it or refuse to accept it, a definition of a natural born citizen is in the decision.
Two citizen parents.
BTW...THE LAW (USC 8) says she is not a natural born citizen. She was naturalized after birth, no naturalization proceeding was necessary. What I "believe" has nothing to do with it.
SHE can believe any damn thing she wants.
And since it was not asked and was not a matter before the court at that time then any comments Chief Justice Waite made on natural-born citizenship were made in dicta. Not binding as precedent. So until the question of who is a natural-born citizen and who is not IS asked of the Supreme Court, and a decision is handed down, you and Harris will have to agree to disagree.
et STILL, no matter how hard you deny it or refuse to accept it, a definition of a natural born citizen is in the decision.
A definition. Is that the only definition? We don't know. Regardless of how hard you deny it. And with all that, and as I've said before, Chief Justice Waite's definition was made in dicta and is not binding as precedent.
Assuming you are referring to 8 U.S. Code § 1401 it says she became a citizen at birth, not a citizen after birth. It's right there in section (a).
SHE can believe any damn thing she wants.
As can you and I. As I've said, several times, the only opinion that matters is the court's.
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.