Posted on 01/12/2024 11:30:39 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
(Jan. 12, 2024) — Following up on the presidential eligibility posts recently appearing at The P&E here and here, the New York Post – founded, BTW, by Alexander Hamilton in 1801 – has come out and slammed President Trump’s suggestion that Nikki Haley is likely ineligible to the presidency. The Post labels President Trump’s suggestion that Haley is not a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) under the Constitution as being “bonkers.”
Really? Where to start, where to start?
First, President Trump’s post questioned Nikki Haley’s eligibility primarily in terms of her pursuit of the presidency, but it also addressed her likely disqualification for the vice-presidency under the 12th Amendment. Problematically, the Post article misinforms its readers when it asserts that “[t]he 12th Amendment lays out the procedure for electing the president and vice president and makes no mention of eligibility.” (Emphasis added) Alterian, Inc.
Even the most cursory review of the actual language of the 12th Amendment reveals that its final sentence states: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” (Emphasis added) Like the caveman said in the Geico commercial from the 1980’s, “Yeah, next time, maybe do a little more research.”
Second, the author of the NY Post article, one Emily Crane, although a journalist for some 15 years with a B.A. degree in “Communications Studies” from Western Sydney University (yes, Virginia, in Australia…, not the United States), does not claim to be a U.S. Constitution scholar. Instead, she relies for her assertions on, among others, one Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago professor who, she claims, is an expert on constitutional law.
Professor Stone is quoted in the Post article ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
If Fury thinks the current conventional wisdom regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" is correct, why would he engage in political activity to change the status quo?
For all those that have made it this far in following/reading the comments in this thread, I recommend you read or re-read the article which started this thread, “The nbC Eligibility Brainwashing Runs Deep” by Joseph Demaio posted at ThePost&Email newspaper at this link: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/01/12/the-nbc-eligibility-brainwashing-runs-deep/ The brainwashing of the American electorate by “Team Obama”, Joe Biden’s puppet-master, and the gas-lighting, language manipulation, and social engineering tactics by Progressive Movement operatives in this thread especially, does indeed run deep.
Team Obama is just fine with where the country is right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI2Xtqd4Mts
The gas-lighters here all are just ignoring your repeated direct question to them. Because the truthful answer from this history of the constitutional convention as to WHY the “natural born Citizen” term is in the Presidential Elibility Clause defeats their gas-lighting arguments.
For those here that want to know the WHY the “natural born Citizen” term was put into the Presidential Eligibility Clause in our U.S. Constitution due to a letter from John Jay (who became the nation’s first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) to George Washington (the President of the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787), that the Team Obama Obots and other Progressive Movement actors and social engineers here are unwilling to talk about, i.e., John Jay’s recommendation to George Washington in that letter, ... and directly answer to “A Strike”’s question of WHY, read: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf
I am not running any articles about her but rather commenting on the very serious subject that you sneeringly refer to as “This nbC sh*T”.
YOUR bullSchiff and acquiescence gave us B HusseinOsama.
back under the bridge
-fJRoberts-
Study your history; it wasn’t me. GWb and the crashing economy gave you the big O over the Mavrick. The mormon tanking his election in the last week gave you O, the second. History, law, logic, and reason will prove you wrong again - regardless of who you pick. Your rock is calling - it might be the mormon - stay close. You are both clueless.
To Donald Trump, et al: @realDonaldTrump @elonmusk @GovRonDeSantis See this outstanding new article by Joseph DeMaio. It is a must read, “Who Can Handle the nbC Eligibility Truth?”: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/01/14/who-can-handle-the-nbc-eligibility-truth/ #DonaldTrump #ElonMusk #RonDeSantis #naturalbornCitizen #PresidentialEligibility #2024Election #VivekRamaswamy #NikkiHaley
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
Abandoning the Constitution clear nbC as you and your ilk are so desperate to do is what gave us taqiyya muslim America destroyer Osama. You just want to ditch your stupid responsibility.
“Crashing economy” bullShiite, you sound like Rachel Maddcow or buckwheat.
You are lucky the economics of 2007 and 2008 didn’t effect you. Neither will fretting over nbC or whatever you want to call it. The chick is going nowhere. Therefore, irrelevant. What if Trump names her as VP. Does that quash your vote? Or more irrelevance? Quit playing the irrelevant game.
It can make someone a citizen. It cannot make them a natural citizen.
The application of "natural born" can vary depending on what law system you follow: the "jus soli" from the English common law or the "jus sanguinis" of civil law.
This is correct. The English had their own version of "natural law" in which it was natural to be ruled by a King who was appointed by God to rule over everyone.
But we forked away from that version to the one that said men had a right to rule themselves.
The English parliament had numerous instances of statutorily defining certain classes of subjects as "natural born".
"Subjects."
I dare say you will have a hard time finding a contemporary account where Parliament declared anyone a "citizen." In the English of the day, "citizen" meant "denizen of a city." Someone who lived in a city.
Their "natural law" dealt solely with "subjects" who were required to have perpetual allegiance to the King.
Our forking over to "citizen" meant we were going Republican, not Monarchist.
You literally misattributed a page from one book to another, for starters.
Disagree. I reject the claims that that book was not based on the report of the Judges. That is just straw grasping from those of you who want to ignore the significance of the fact that the author cited the judges as the source of his information contained in his book.
I've seen so many sources and citations thrown your way over these past months on various threads that I can only conclude that you must be very forgetful (to be charitable).
If it references something after 1868, I automatically discard it and don't bother looking at it.
But to be frank, your reliance on Vattel's understanding from a treatise on international law is outweighed by that which supports common law understanding
Oh, another liberal Obama voting herd animal telling me the herd position is correct. No thanks.
(your incorrect claim that Rawle is the only source of such an understanding notwithstanding):
Never said he was the only one. Said he was the most influential. He had the greatest effect.
...suggesting that revolutionary Americans did not change their terminology from citizen to subject in the wake of the Revolution.
Thomas Jefferson deliberately changed the word "subject" into "citizen" in writing the Declaration of Independence. That was 1776. So yes, the intent to go from Subject to Citizen was inherent in the founding itself.
The guy who wrote that above, seemingly is unaware of this fact.
I would respond to more of your quotes, but because it is an image, it is difficult to quote, so I do not feel so inclined to retype everything to which I would like to respond.
I will say that using the English law version does not solve the loyalty problem that was the entire reason for the Framers insisting on a protection against foreign influence in the first place!
Using the Vattel version *DOES* solve the loyalty problem.
Federalist #68 (Alexander Hamilton):
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
-PJ
As my grandma would say, "That and a nickel will get you on the subway".
I said when I first started posting it that i'm not sure if I was spelling it right because it had been awhile since I had need to reference it. The case had become increasingly difficult for me to find, so I contented myself with the fact that if someone went to the trouble of looking it up, they could simply point out that I didn't spell it right, and now here we are! :)
All of these sources cited point to Rawle's argument being rejected not because of his arguments regarding "natural born citizenship", but rather that the very status of "slave" was not inconsistent with Pennsylvania's own constitution. In fact, the matter of who is and is not a "natural born citizen" is not mentioned even once.
Irrelevant. Rawle was trying to argue slaves were "born here" and were therefore "citizens", because this is the English law rule. Since Rawle appears to be the man most responsible for spreading the idea that English law governs American Citizenship, his acts and motivations are important in understanding why he spread something he knew to be false.
He was doing it for what he saw as a good reason.
Thus, I must ask: what evidence do you have supporting your repeated contention that the Flora v. Graisberry case can be construed as a rejection of the common law understanding of "natural born citizen"?
Because it is a virtual certainty that Rawle made the same arguments in 1803 that he made decades later, and for the same reason. He was trying to abolish slavery by making slaves into citizens.
I have read a lot about Rawle around a decade ago. If you want a better understanding of him, you should read more about his role in the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.
On the basis that they are consistent with his behavior throughout his life. Why else would he lie about citizenship following English law when that very famous lawbook in Pennsylvania citing the report of the Judges clearly contradicts this view?
Also, "William Lewis" was the mentor of Samuel Roberts. In those days, lawyers mostly learned their trade by being mentored by Senior lawyers.
Samuel Roberts would not have gotten the idea that Citizenship was based on Vattel without William Lewis having told him that it was.
I think William Lewis was a member of the Pennsylvania legislature at the time they ratified the US Constitution.
In any case, this appears to be the understanding of the legal community of Philadelphia, which as I said, ought to have more weight than anyone else anywhere else.
And it does not solve the loyalty problem that caused the founders to want to insert "natural born citizen" into the Presidential eligibility requirements in the first place!
The Vattel definition *DOES* solve the loyalty problem. A citizen as defined by Vattel, *cannot have* any other loyalty than the allegiance of his parents.
Your ‘arguments’ employing years of subsequent legal mumbo-jumbo regarding nbC are similar to those attempting to accrue legitimacy to the question of ‘what is a woman’.
Yup.
Well that link was totally useless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_as_a_federal_state
And so was that one.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 658-59:
1898 doesn't define "natural born citizen."
Congressional Globe, House, June 13, 1866, 39 Cong, 1st sess, pg 3148:
1866 doesn't define "natural born citizen."
Rawles influence had already taken hold by then, and people no longer knew the truth.
Show me something from the 1790s-1800s era.
Yup. Same logic.
Roberts rubbed shoulders with them during their lifetime, and you know he talked about this with them.
It is a general statement that the existing law should continue, *EXCEPT* where it is found to be in conflict with principles of American law.
Citizenship is one such case where English law is incompatible with American principles.
I refer you to Zephaniah Swift's 1795 treatise cited in post #39: "The common law of England is obligatory in this state by immemorial usage, and consent, so far as it corresponds with our circumstances and situation. As we have no treatise upon our laws, we are under the necessity of becoming acquainted with the English code for the purpose of understanding our own. The operation of the English common law, is ascertained by no general rule, and is bounded by no known line: it can be learned only from the decisions of our courts. A common law peculiar to ourselves, resulting from our local circumstances, has been established by the decision of our courts; but has never been committed to writing."
That we ejected the monarchal rule of England in favor of a constitutional republic in no way implies nor necessitates that the common law system in use (along with how terms were understood) was likewise rejected.
If it references something after 1868, I automatically discard it and don't bother looking at it.
So in other words, you would discard American legal/judicial precedent and commentary that's been around for the majority of our country's existence. (This would, naturally, render you unable to use the arguments of anyone after 1868 that is arguing in favor of a "natural born citizen" definition that fits your desires.)
What an unserious retort.
Oh, another liberal Obama voting herd animal telling me the herd position is correct. No thanks.
And your evidence that the author, Michael D. Ramsey, is a "liberal Obama voting herd animal" is...what, exactly?
Ramsey was a clerk for Justice Scalia, is an editor and contributor to the Originalism Blog, and — from the following 2016 symposium about Scalia from 'Law & Liberty' — is quoted as saying: "Scalia’s originalism did not fully prevail (or, more optimistically, has not yet prevailed). Sometimes it did, at the Court, as in Heller. Sometimes it influenced the Court’s majority, even in opinions that were not fully originalist. Often he was in dissent, but less often was he alone. The originalist position in Noel Canning (2014) got four votes, not one. Lower courts began producing originalist opinions. Lawyers included originalist arguments in their briefs. Law professors and commentators began arguing over it. His achievement—I think an irreversible achievement—was to make people think about originalism. Today no one can teach or study constitutional law without thinking about originalism. We can’t talk about new Supreme Court appointments without talking about originalism. No one can litigate a constitutional case without examining the Constitution’s original meaning. We take that for granted now. It’s important to remember how much that has changed in 30 years, and how much of that is owed to one man."
Do such laudatory words of Scalia and his originalism sound like they came from a "liberal Obama voting herd animal" to you? (And besides, even if they did, they would not make the pre-1868 sources he cites in that essay in favor of his argument disappear.)
Thomas Jefferson deliberately changed the word "subject" into "citizen" in writing the Declaration of Independence. That was 1776. So yes, the intent to go from Subject to Citizen was inherent in the founding itself. The guy who wrote that above, seemingly is unaware of this fact.
You miss the point of the whole paragraph, then: namely, that 'natural born subjects' and 'natural born citizens' were used interchangeably by many in the early years of America, insofar as legislative, judicial, or legal purposes are concerned.
To quote from Ramsey's essay in question: "Second, there is evidence that the founding generation, at least in some instances, used “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” interchangeably. For example, Massachusetts continued the English practice of legislative acts naturalizing particular named individuals. These acts recited that the naturalized individuals would have all the rights of (in some cases) “natural born subjects” of the state and (in others) “natural born citizens.” As far as the historical record reflects, no difference was intended; the phrases appear to be used interchangeably to convey the same meaning. In particular, the state Acts referred to “natural born subjects” during the Confederation period immediately before and during the drafting and ratifying process, suggesting that revolutionary Americans did not change their terminology from citizen to subject in the wake of the Revolution."
That Jefferson used "citizen" in the Declaration instead of "subject" does not undermine this point whatsoever.
I will say that using the English law version does not solve the loyalty problem that was the entire reason for the Framers insisting on a protection against foreign influence in the first place! Using the Vattel version *DOES* solve the loyalty problem
Using Vattel's definition of citizenship would have rendered numerous children of immigrants (not yet naturalized) in the early years of America into non-citizens, for one thing.
But I digress: the issue is that, despite your professed preference for Vattel, the historical record (insofar as America is concerned) is overwhelmingly in favor of "jus soli" overriding "jus sanguinis" in terms of determining who is and is not a citizen of this country. You may not like it (I certainly don't; I personally prefer it!), but history is against our preferences.
Hence why I think your attempts at arguing 'no, the judicial, legal, and common law precedents going back over two centuries are all wrong!' is an exercise in futility.
If you want Vattel's understanding of "natural born citizen" to take hold in America, you will need a constitutional amendment to codify it as thus. That's the bottom line.
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.