Vivek Ramaswamy Admits in NBC News Interview His Parents Were Not U.S. Citizens When He Was Born

Vivek Ramaswamy is NOT constitutionally eligible for the office he seeks!

Case closed.

I care more about his response to Israel defending itself than about where his parents were born. The birthplace concept is something from a different era in which people were subjects to kings. I’d trust some foreign-born legal immigrants more than I trust some American-born citizens whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower.

Spoken like a Democrat.

Dems don’t believe the Constitution should apply today either!🥴

“NBC” knitting-circle chatter goes into high gear every four years.

In the real world, however, no court ever throws a U.S.-born POTUS candidate off the ballot. This cycle will be no different.

Paging Kalamity Harris and Barak Insane O’Bama ...

Here we go again...

Not only do I disagree with you but I would take it a step further and prohibit anyone with dual citizenship from holding public office.

The 35 years of age requirement in Article II, section one, clause 5 was ratified in an era when the average life expectancy was around 35 years or so.

Would you disregard that provision absent a constitutional amendment too???

The constitution was never intended to be a menu. Every one of it’s requirements are essential.

(Making sure my fire proof suit on and my undisclosed location is in fact, undisclosed).

That's not the law or how the US Supreme Court works. Both Ramaswamy and Kamala Harris are NBCs under existing US law and court rulings.

Bloggers making up interpretations of the law and court decisions change nothing. Flaming those who point this out changes nothing too.

BTTT

Biden, Schumer, AOC, pelosi are all NBC with only USA citizenship. I trust them less than some one with triple citizenship if she loves United States of America.

It is relevant today. If parents don’t care enough about America to get their citizenship, then how are they to teach their children to love and be loyal to America?

obama was born in Kenya. He is a criminal trying to destroy our way of life.
At least we should have US born criminals in our gov’t....

Agreed. And the founders and framers felt the same way regarding who could be the President and Commander in Chief of our military once the founding generation, who were exempted by the grandfather clause in the presidential eligibility clause, had passed away: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2023/07/21/quotable-quotes-re-citizenship-kinds-allegiance-and-the-presidential-eligibility-clause-of-united-states/

Agree with you 100%

The US Constitution was never intended to be a buffet menu.....
where we pick and choose (and adhere to) only what we personally like.

It is the nation’s secular version of the “Ten Commandments.”

Every one of it’s requirements are essential.

In the fantasy world where this is the legal standard, very interesting.

But we’re in this world.

I’m more interested in the face he supported the Arab animals who tied together 20 toddlers and set them on fire. And raped women so abusively that they died of broken pelvises.

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. ... 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.

This is STILL total nonsense, and nonsense it will remain, no matter how manuy time this wingnut repeats it.

Chester Arthur's father was not a citizen when he became either Vice President, or President. Barack Obama became President with a non-citizen father. Vice President Kamala Harris was born to two aliens.

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." There is no secret hidden codicil referring to parents of the chile.

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."

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

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. 583 (1844), as published in New York Legal Observer, Volume III, 1845

It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents.
[...]
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "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," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

The author, CDR Kerchner, brought a lawsuit with this sort of frivolous birther nonsense, against Barack Obama.

https://casetext.com/case/kerchner-v-obama-2

Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (2010) Third Circuit, July 1, 2010

III.
Because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we will order counsel for Appellants to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 provides that "[i]f a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee." "The purpose of an award of attorneys' fees under Rule 38 is to compensate appellees who are forced to defend judgments awarded them in the trial court from appeals that are wholly without merit, and to preserve the appellate court calendar for cases worthy of consideration." Huck v. Dawson, 106 F.3d 45, 52 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation and citation omitted). "Damages [under Rule 38] are awarded by the court in its discretion... as a matter of justice to the appellee." Beam v. Bauer, 383 F.3d 106, 108 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation and citation omitted). An "important purpose [of a damages award] is to discourage litigants from unnecessarily wasting their opponents' time and resources." Nagle v. Alspach, 8 F.3d 141, 145 (3d Cir. 1993).
"This court employs an objective standard to determine whether or not an appeal is frivolous" which "focuses on the merits of the appeal regardless of good or bad faith." Hilmon Co. v. Hyatt Int'l, 899 F.2d 250, 253 (3d Cir. 1990) (internal quotation omitted). We have stated that "an appeal from a frivolous claim is likewise frivolous." Beam, 383 F.3d at 108. Appellants had ample notice that this appeal had no merit. They should have been aware that we rejected almost identical claims in Berg, as have courts in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Barnett v. Obama, No. 09-0082, F. Supp. 2d, 2009 WL 3861788, at *4-*6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009) (holding that active and former military personnel lack Article III standing requirements to challenge President Obama's eligibility for office); Cohen v. Obama, No. 08-2150, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008) (holding that a federal prisoner who alleged that then-Senator Obama was "an illegal alien impersonating a United States citizen" lacked standing under Article III), aff'd, Cohen v. Obama, 332 F. App'x 640 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Examination of this precedent would have made it "obvious to a reasonable attorney that an appeal from the District Court's order was frivolous, [as no] law or facts... support a conclusion that the District Court judge had erred." Beam, 383 F.3d at 109. Moreover, other courts have imposed sanctions for similar reasons. See Hollister v. Soetero, 258 F.R.D. 1, 2-5 (D.D.C. 2009) (reprimanding an attorney under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) for signing and filing a complaint alleging that President Obama was ineligible to serve as president because he is not a "natural born Citizen"), aff'd, Hollister v. Soetoro, Nos. 09-5080, 09-5161, 2010 WL 1169793 (D.C. Cir. March 22, 2010); see also Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1373 (M.D.Ga. 2009) (imposing monetary sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3) against counsel who filed similar claims on behalf of members of the military), aff'd, Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 09-15418, 2010 WL 892848 (11th Cir. March 15, 2010).
In the past, "we cautioned counsel that a finding by a District Court that a lawsuit is frivolous should serve as notice to the parties and their attorney to exercise caution, pause, and devote additional examination to the legal validity and factual merit of his contentions." Beam, 383 F.3d at 109 (quotation omitted). Although the District Court did not explicitly state that Appellants' claims were frivolous, the finding of other district courts that plaintiffs who filed complaints based on similar legal theories violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 should have served as meaningful notice that the appeal here would be frivolous.5 We therefore will order Appellants' counsel to show cause why he should not pay just damages and costs for having filed a frivolous appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 38.
IV.
For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the District Court's order of dismissal.