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 ...
I covered this with you the last time we exchanged messages on this topic.
That name certainly sounds familiar to me. That may very well be the guy who discovered the truth about Chester A Arthur's father.
I think it's him that I was thinking of. I found this picture of him engaging in high stakes gambling.
This jives with my memory of him.
naturel
Not true. I've read accounts of other contemporary translations of French to English in which the exact same usage of words was employed.
So the translation is accurate.
And of course that page from that law book I posted earlier specifically says so.
Beautiful handwriting.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
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.
Correct, the Constitution does not mention “running for president” in the discussion of who is eligible. It indicates “eligibility” for being President.
But elsewhere, the Constitution discusses presidential electors, which touches on the election of a president through the actions of the electors.
Yes, there is a “presidential election” in December with 535 voters - but that’s not what most people mean when they talk about “running for President”.
The question still remains: On whom does the NBC clause act? Does it prohibit a State Legislature from appointing an Elector who says he will vote for an ineligible person? Does it prohibit Congress from counting that vote?
Or does it prohibit a judge from administering the oath of office to an ineligible person?
Interesting stuff.
Yes, these are all interesting legal questions.
We may never get answers to such questions, because it will take someone filing a lawsuit against a particular presidential candidate, with the legal complaint that such candidate is not a natural born citizen, and seeing courts deal with it.
I had heard that someone had tried to file lawsuits over this subject, when Obama ran for president, but that a court dismissed it on some procedural grounds. So that suit never got anywhere.
“Les naturels, ou indigénes, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parents citoyens.”
What’s your take in terms of the significance of this passage in French in the original 1758 volume?
This Guy sees that Vattel has singled out the source of citizenship for some 70 percent of current U.S. citizens.
These are the Plain Vanilla U.S. American citizens from whom we should be selecting to determine who occupies the office of POTUS. To posit otherwise is to fall prey to the exotic attraction of foreign spices. (Yes—most real vanilla spice iruginates in Mexico!)
Arthur obviously was not born after the 14th Amendment
Sorry, my stupid error.
although I suppose he could have been a citizen of Vermont as well as the British Empire as Ireland was ruled over for hundreds of years in actual fact.
He was a citizen of the State of Vermont and a United States citizen at birth. Whether he also had a claim to Be a British citizen or subject is a matter of British law which has no effect on United State citizenship.
Ireland has never been part of Great Britain. Ireland was ruled by the British but that did not make them part of GB. GB is England, Scotland and Wales. UK is the union of GB and NI. The term British is thrown around for the UK as there is no term such as UKer.
In discussing British citizenship determinations, such distinctions have to be considered.
Until the Republic of Ireland changed its constitution after the Good Friday agreement, the Republic had always claimed all 32 counties, considering the six counties to be British occupied Ireland. Anyone having been born in the six counties was able to go south and obtain an Irish passport, as the Republic considered them to have been born in the Republic.
What’s your take in terms of the significance of this passage in French in the original 1758 volume?This Guy sees that Vattel has singled out the source of citizenship for some 70 percent of current U.S. citizens.
Vattel was dead (d. 1767) before there was a Declaration of Independence or a United States.
Vattel wrote a book about The Law of Nations. That is nothing but the archaic term for International Law. United States citizenship determinations are not made in the Hague, and are not made pursuant to international law. International law does not apply to purely domestic determinations of any state in the world.
Who is expected to do their duty in protecting the nation?
I would think the answer should be "all of us."
The state government's shouldn't have let anyone on the ballot without proof of compliance with the NBC clause. The Congress should have rejected any candidate without proof. The Judiciary should have rejected any candidate without proof.
Everyone should have insisted on compliance with the necessary requirements.
Jesus was dead for over a thousand years, but they still mentioned him in the US Constitution.
OK, I thought they were considered part of the British Empire.
Here is the argument I used on this exact issue in constitutional law having fun with my professor one day. I am not looking to debate you. This reply is so others are not confused by your 'flawed logic'
The U.S. Constitution, in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, stipulates that only a "natural born Citizen" is eligible for the presidency. The 14th Amendment further clarifies that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." To be a citizen of any type those are the only two options.
If a presidential candidate has never undergone the naturalization process, this eliminates the possibility of them being a naturalized citizen. This leaves two only potential categories for the candidate:
1) a natural-born citizen or
2) an illegal alien
Given the scrutiny of a presidential campaign, it's highly improbable that an illegal alien could advance without significant legal challenges and threat of deportation, thus, the only conclusion is that the candidate is a natural-born citizen.
I will ignore the nuances in U.S. immigration law, which present additional considerations such as being born abroad to American parents or being born in a U.S. territory since those are not being argued as with John McCain.
Carry on.
“That may very well be the guy who discovered the truth about Chester A Arthur’s father.”
That wasn’t he daddy of TV paternity tests Maury Povich?
You’re aware, are you not, that the volume in question had been consumed whole in its original French by every founding father in question, including, most notably, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison.
Mount Vernon recently returned (donated) an original copy to the New York Public Library (it having been determined that Washington’s first administration had borrowed it and never returned it).
Don’t underestimate dead Vattel’s immense influence in the U.S. during the 1770s, 1780s, and onward.
Have you seen this from John Adams by the way?:
___________
From John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 24 July 1785
To Thomas Jefferson
Grosvenor Square July 24th. 1785—Dear Sir.
I have a Letter from the Baron De Thulemeier of the 19th. and a Copy of his Letter to you of the same date. I hope now in a few Day’s to take Mr. Short by the hand in Grosvenor Square, and to put my hand to the [Tr]eaty. I think no time should be lost. We will join Mr. Dumas with Mr. Short in the Exchange if you please.
I applyed as you desired, and obtained the interposition of the Lords Commissioners of the treasury, and the Commissioners of the Customs for the transhipping of Dr. Franklin’s Baggage. We have heared of the Doctors arrival at Rouen, but no further.1
{The Britons alliens Duty is a very burthensome Thing, and they may carry it hereafter as far upon Tobacco, Rice Indigo and twenty other Things, as they do now upon oil. to obviate this, I think of Substituting, the Words “natural born Citizens of the United States,” and “natural born Subjects of Great Britain,” instead of “the most favoured Nation.” You remember We first proposed to offer this to all Nations, but upon my Objecting that the English would make their ships French or Sweedish or Dutch &c to avail themselves of it, without agreeing to it, on their Part, We altered it to the footing of “Gentis Amicissimæ.[”]2 But if the English will now agree to it, We shall Secure ourselves against many odious Duties, and no ill Consequence can arise. it is true the French Dutch Sweeds and Prussians will of Course claim the Advantage, but as they must in return allow Us the Same Advantage, So much the better.— let me know if any Objection occurs to you.}3
There is a Bill before Parliament to prevent smuggling Tobacco, in which restrictions are very rigorous, but cannot be effected.4 two thirds of the Tobacco consumed in this Kingdom I am told is smuggled— how can it be otherwise when the impost is five times the original Value of the Commodity. If [one] pound in five escapes nothing is lost. if two in five, a great profit is [made.—]
the Duty is 16d. pr. pound and tobacco sells for three pence.— Yet all applications for lowering the Duty are rejected—5
Yours most affectionately
John Adams
__________
By the way, the first use of “natural Born Citizens of the United States” by John Adams that This Guy knows of is from a 1782 draft he forwarded of the Treaty if Paris.
No need to equate NBC with Natural Born Subject. Adams by 1782 had stopped using the latter term. Given his refusal to ape Great Britain, he surely would not breezily have argued for synonymity.
An archival search of “natural Born” with John Adams as author:
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.