Posted on 10/22/2023 11:18:56 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Oct. 22, 2023) — Vivek Ramaswamy Admits in NBC News Interview His Parents Were Not U.S. Citizens When He Was Born. This was deduced and suspected previously but he has finally admitted it.
Vivek Ramaswamy admitted during live interview in Sep 2023 on NBC News that neither of his parents when he was born were citizens of the USA. Also, he admitted that although his mother later became a U.S. citizen his father never did. Watch the interview starting at about 26:08 into the full interview: https://youtu.be/toiiWWFsWOw?si=EMOuYOGT93CmiKP or see the relevant four minute excerpt of the interview at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM4UpgZ6sQA.
Vivek Ramaswamy is thus NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. To be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States one must be at least a second generation Citizen, i.e., a person born in the USA to parents who were both U.S. Citizens when their child is born in the USA. Vivek’s mother became a U.S. Citizen several years after he was born. Vivek’s father has never become a U.S. Citizen. ... continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/10/22/vivek-ramaswamy-admits-in-nbc-news-interview-his-parents-were-not-u-s-citizens-when-he-was-born/
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Agree with you here. What the hell was this guy thinking?
I don’t think we recognized Japanese sovereignty over the Aleutians. Also, I don’t know whether the Japanese asserted sovereignty over their conquest in the same way that they did over their home islands. So a case could be made that a child born on those islands was still a natural born citizen.
Another interesting sidelight might be the fact that Congress finally granted citizenship to all American Indians in 1924. If you were a Native American born here before 1924, what did that make you? IIRC, citizens of American Samoa still aren’t automatically born US citizens. People made that as an objection to Tulsi Gabbard, but she was a US citizen from birth through her father, who was also born in Samoa, but who had US citizenship through his father.
Vivek Ramaswamy is NOT constitutionally eligible for the office he seeks!
__________________________________________
Oh Grow Up!
Quotable Quotes re Citizenship Kinds, Allegiance, and The Presidential Eligibility Clause in The United States Constitution: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2023/07/21/quotable-quotes-re-citizenship-kinds-allegiance-and-the-presidential-eligibility-clause-of-united-states/
By the way—if you have to point to positive law, including, for example, the 14th Amendment, to prove your membership in the U.S. polity, you’re a Naturalized (i.e., Foreign Spice) Citizen.NBCs are what’s left over after all Positive Law Citizens are filtered out. In the long history of the United States, hey never had to point to positive law to prove their membership in the U.S. polity.
You should argue that to a court. Oh, never mind.
14A governs the citizenship status of all persons born within the territory of the United States. It has been doing so for a century and a half.
0 for 361 is not a good batting average.
BIRTHER SCORECARD (last updated 2015)
https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/birther%20case%20list.pdf
Original decisions, total cases: 226
Birther wins: 0
Total appellate court rulings: 120+
Birther wins: 0
Total supreme court rulings: 35
Birther wins: 0
Not true, and you ought to know it. Clearly you don't bother reading the things I have told you on this issue. I even sent you a link on this point.
The issue came up with the Presidential election of Woodrow Wilson. Charles Evans Hughes, the Republican candidate, was alleged to be an illegitimate candidate precisely because of this issue.
Here is that link again. https://highlanderjuan.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within.pdf
Barry Goldwater and George Romney were also challenged as to their citizenship status. Here, i'll save myself some time by linking you to another article.
As I told you before, you being such an educated man, I am flattered that you chose me to educate you further.
Anyone appealing to a Naturalization Act passed by Congress to gain or prove their U.S. Citizenship is a NATURALIZED Citizen. See this blast from the past. The Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act and Why It Was Totally Repealed in 1795 as in Error and Replaced by the 1795 Naturalization Act: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/via-liberty-born-new-evidence-intent-of-1790-naturalization-act/
The constitution gives an explicit definition for only one provision, that of treason. Terms such as “well regulated militia,”, “interstate commerce”, and “freedom of speech” are best understood in light of the times that the framers construed them. Many of those terms that the founders adopted were explained in the 1758 treatise on international law that was probably the most pre-eminent and frequently referenced study on those subjects at the time.
The Natural Born Citizen eligibility clause has never been directly adjudicated by SCOTUS. But it has been obliquely addressed in other cases.
In 1814, the SCOTUS heard a case known as the Venus Merchantman case. Among other issues, it concerned itself with the impressment of US merchant sailors by the British Royal Navy into their service on the high seas. That SCOTUS, ALL of whom being members of the founding generation defined what a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN was by quoting the entire 212th paragraph of Emmerich De Vatel’s Law of Nations, which was considered to be THE treatise on international law and was referred to regularly by statesmen at the time. That definition, which was incorporated into the majority opinion authored by Justice Livingston follows:
Quote of section 212, Chapter 19, Book 1, Law of Nations, by Vattel, written in 1758:
Ҥ 212 - Citizens and Natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to
this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its
advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents
who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the
children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and
succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what
it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen,
on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The
country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens
merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of
discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they
were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of
a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of
his birth, and not his country. “
Note that the above reference was made in 1814, 54 years before the adoption of the 14th amendment, which makes no reference to, nor does it modify Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the constitution, no matter what the original intent might have been. The framers of the constitution were patriarchs, who believed that the citizenship status of the children followed that of the father. It is clear that they were concerned with undue foreign influence upon the office of the presidency, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
To believe that the framers would have accepted that a person born a British subject, (as Obama himself admitted to being owing to his FATHER) when they had to exempt themselves with the grandfather exemption in clause 5 of Section 2 in order to be POTUS eligible, beggars belief and logic. Subsequent rulings of the SCOTUS in Minor vs Happersett, and Wong Kim Ark vs US serve only bolster this conclusion.
I believe that the court is reluctant to examine this issue, given the ghastly implications for the actuality of an illegitimate POTUS having made executive decisions for 2 terms, and the reality of an ineligible VP casting votes as the President of the Senate. How would all of their actions be unraveled? It would be a God awful mess of the worst sort...
All: To learn more about Chester Arthur’s eligibility identity fraud see: https://www.iuniverse.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/775911-Imposters-in-the-Oval-Office
I don't think I have ever before seen such a glaring error from you.
Chester A Arthur was born in 1829. The 14th was ratified in 1868.
You know this. I can only suppose you had a momentary lapse or something.
"Separate but Equal" was nonsense. This is the same court that gave us Wong Kim Ark, which was also a version of "separate but equal." :)
Yes, I agree. It is one idiot court after another parroting what the previous idiot courts said, and *NOBODY* bothering to look up original sources to shed some light on the matter.
Just an endless gaggle of courts repeating hearsay.
“What is the supposed issue with Don Jr running for President?”
Ivana wasn’t a U.S. Citizen when he, Ivanka, and Eric were born. (It was OK for Hussein Obama, but wouldn’t be for a conservative, y’know.)
That no one knew about at the time. Kinda like where Obama was really born.
It might have been Hawaii, but their refusal to provide any real proof of that implies it wasn't.
The glaring fallacy of basing "natural born citizen" on the 14th amendment is the fact that it didn't apply to Indians.
Dichotomies make it a muck of a standard.
Yeah, courts are a waste of time. Too many incompetent people and liars running them to get anywhere with that route.
They reject hearsay unless it's approved hearsay, and then they mandate it as "law."
The judicial system in America needs a serious overhaul. We need to restore it to competence and functionality.
Article II, section one, clause 5 is NOT about citizenship. The issue of persons to whom the provisions of the 14th amendment applied was decided by SCOTUS in the 1870 Wong Kim Ark vs US case.
The Article II clause is strictly about what class of US citizen is eligible to be POTUS, as that issue has NO OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION.
Discussions about whether or not 14th amendment citizens are citizens at birth AND therefore eligible serve only to pettifog the actual issue at hand.
Interesting. Sovereignty vs jurisdiction.
“the territory or sphere of activity over which the legal authority of a court or other institution extends:” — that is jurisdiction
During this period of Aleutian occupation by the Japanese, US courts had lost jurisdiction because courts could not exercise authority there.
Sovereignty is the supreme authority over a state or nation-state to self governance.
During this period of occupation, there was no authority to govern those occupied islands, but you’re right, the US likely never recognized loss of sovereignty over those islands. How could they?
But. . . it would not matter. During that period they had lost jurisdiction. So those babies were not born within the jurisdiction of the US.
Any term with “natural” in it as an adjective such as “natural born Citizen” refers to natural made and Natural Law, not man-made via man’s Positive Laws such as made by Acts of Congress, but instead by the Laws of Nature and Natural Law. Vattel was the preeminent legal treatise on “Natural Law” during the founding and framing era. See: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ The founders and framers used the French edition. See my discussion about that: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2023/04/15/my-translation-of-a-key-sentence-in-emer-de-vattels-1758-treatise-on-natural-law-in-section-212-des-citoyens-et-naturels/
That didn't matter in 1787. Only the father's citizenship status mattered. The law used in 1787 automatically gave the woman her husband's citizenship upon marriage.
Women didn't acquire the ability to pass on citizenship until the Cable act of 1922. (except in the case of out of wedlock births. Children with no known father were assigned the citizenship of the mother.)
I even seem to remember that congress passed a law in the 1870s or so strictly forbidding women from passing on citizenship. I used to keep references around a decade ago, but now I have to rely on my increasingly unreliable memory.
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.