Good Day Sir
Posted on 01/19/2024 4:57:37 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
Nikki Haley, the daughter of two non-citizens, is patently ineligible to serve as President or Vice President under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution
The following analysis is a detailed response to critiques of an article I wrote earlier this month that garnered national attention, and was even Truthed by President Trump, shedding light on Nikki Haley’s ineligibility to serve as President or Vice President under the Constitution. My article was published originally on my Substack and American Greatness, and was titled “The Constitution Absolutely Prohibits Nikki Haley From Being President Or Vice President.” As A Threshold Matter, Nikki Haley, The Daughter Of Two Non-Citizens, Must Provide Proof That Her Parents Were Lawful Residents When She Was Born
As we head into the New Hampshire Republican primary, the presidential field has consolidated around three major candidates: Donald Trump, the frontrunner by wide margins, Nikki Haley, and Ron DeSantis. With Vivek Ramaswamy’s distant fourth place finish in Iowa and subsequent endorsement of the 45th President, Trump’s edge in New Hampshire looks insurmountable.
Recent polling suggests that he commands an outright majority of all New Hampshire GOP voters, meaning that even if all the remaining candidates dropped out and rallied around a single challenger to Trump, their collective effort would still fail – without, perhaps, outside help from Democrats and Independents. With recent reports that Ron DeSantis’ War Room has been dissolved, and all the staff being laid off in the aftermath of Iowa’s disaster, it seems to have proven true Nikki Haley’s post-Iowa declaration that the Republican Primary has now become “a two person race.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Yes, she’d be a good choice. Also the one running for Senate in AZ.
That is true as I don’t think their mother’s were a Citizen of any kind of the United States when those children were born. So they likely would have inherited also the Citizenship of their mother at/by their birth circumstance when those children were born in the USA.
At least Ramaswamy withdrew. Saw a long talk between Don Jr and Vivek on Rumble, both saying very smart things about the country and the election. Vivek will almost surely hold some position in the Trump administration. The Don really likes him.
There is no rational basis for you to claim the founders "declined to identify and to describe the term" or even that there was a need to do so. It is certain they were confident of their usage of the term, that it was well understood at the time at least by those who would sign the document and thought appropriate.
However, this would be a good time for you to explain why you believe they seemed to purposely obscure the meaning of the term since you claim to know.
As for the rest of your response you mistakenly confuse me for an anti-Nikki voter and charge me and others for grandstanding on the NBC issue only because we are racists.
With that, I am going to do things more enjoyable than exchanging with you.
You claim the founders were certain and confident of their usage. Yet here we are - 237 years later and legal experts, courts, historians and millions others are on both sides of the fence on this NBC issue. I tell you again. This was by design. They left it up to Congress to interpret what is and isn't a NBC
As we know Congress has tried to do this as well as the Courts. They have failed.
However, this would be a good time for you to explain why you believe they seemed to purposely obscure the meaning of the term since you claim to know.
With that, I am going to do things more enjoyable than exchanging with you.
Good Day Sir.
No it wasn't. It was amended to give citizenship to slaves, who even though they were born here, were not regarded as "citizens", and therefore your English law theory is incorrect.
The purpose of the 14th was to protect freed slaves by giving them the rights of citizens. It had nothing to do with any desire to redefine "natural born citizen."
The 14th amendment does not mention "natural born citizen" anywhere in it, and the people debating it would have laughed at the idea that slaves would be "natural born citizens."
They called the 14th amendment a naturalization law, which it was.
In Obama's case there were 226 challenges brought about challenging his status as Natural Born Citizen. None. Zero. Nada were even admitted or heard before any court.
Yeah, the courts are completely screwed up. We see more evidence of that every day. Almost all those cases you mentioned were dismissed for lack of "standing", and occasionally they would throw in a "laches" dodge.
None of these cases ever got to the stage where you actually produce evidence. These were just more arrogant sh*thead judges refusing to do anything, same way they did with vote fraud in 2020.
Historians have found that using the strictest sense of of defining a Natural Born Citizen means that even both parents must not only be citizens, but they must have been born in this country as well.
That is incorrect. The parents must be citizens and that is all. And to be honest, only the father had to be a citizen. For most of this nation's existence, the status of the wife didn't matter. She was considered as American when she married an American.
Women couldn't pass on citizenship until the Cable act of 1922.
A fact that disqualifies Donald Trump himself since his mother was born in Scotland.
Absolutely irrelevant for the reasons I mentioned above. Nobody cared about the wives. Only the Father's mattered.
I wish these racists would leave this matter alone. They are embarrasing themselves and Free Republic.
Racists? You are barking up the wrong tree. Nobody gives a sh*t that Obama was black. We cared that he was another @$$hole Democrat who would wreck the country (which he did) and take us in a direction the nation very badly did not need to go. (which he did.)
If we could have disqualified Bill Clinton or Idiot Biden, we all would have loved to do it.
It's politics. We don't want *THEIR* side in power, and any excuse that can keep them away from it is a good enough reason to attack them.
Racists? Yes. The real reason they use the NBC clause as a smoke screen is to avoid brown foreign people.
You are full of sh*t. I don't want foreign white people either, especially the Swedes, the English, the Germans, the French. The Hungarians and the Poles wouldn't be so bad, because at least they still have some common sense, but Western Europe is now full of socialist idiots whom I don't want anywhere near power in this Nation.
But as we all know, the GOP is no longer a true opposition party. And there is no longer a fiercely independent press. So we got Obama as president. And we got a stolen presidential election since then (2020).
I would argue it is the *DUTY* of state officials to make certain that anyone being placed on the ballot is eligible for the office. The Democrats believe this too when it's not one of their pieces of vermin running.
Notice how all the Secretaries of state, none of which gave a sh*t about the legality of Obama, are now suddenly all concerned with banning Trump from the ballot on the pretext he engaged in "insurrection"?
So yeah, all the Democrat Secretaries of state now feel it is their duty to protect access to the ballot, but they *DID NOT* feel that way when that idiot hood ornament was running for the Presidency.
So yeah, opposition party is fine, but the Secretaries of State in the various states should have *DEMANDED* proof that Obama was eligible, and absent that, they should have *REFUSED* to allow him on the ballot.
They bungled their jobs. This is malfeasance.
That is complete bullsh*t. Barrack Obama sr was dead broke, Stanley Ann had nothing, Madeline Dunham wasn't going to pay to fly her daughter and her black boyfriend to Africa, and Barack Obama Sr's father absolutely did not want his son marrying a white woman. He said so in a letter.
Stanley Ann never went to Kenya. There is no proof she ever went, and there is a *LOT* of proof she never could have gone.
Later, she rents an apartment in the Capitol Hill District. She attends classes at the University of Washington during the 1961-1962 school year while simultaneously raising her infant son.
And this is proof she never went to Kenya. You cannot fly anywhere with an infant of that age in this era. Other freepers have posted the brochures from the various airlines in 1961 and they specifically said an infant that young would not be allowed to fly.
She went to Blaine Washington to live with her Aunt Eleanor until the baby was born, and the plan was to give him up for adoption. Barack Obama sr says this was the plan in a letter he wrote, and I have seen this letter.
Stanley Ann changed her mind about giving away her baby, and *THAT* is why she was in Seattle in the later half of August. She was already in the area *BEFORE* Obama was born.
Did it say where they got this "citizenship" idea?
No, it didn't, because Wikipedia is full of liars too.
They got the idea of "citizen" from Switzerland, where it's people were called "citizens."
In England, they were called "subjects." They were also called "subjects" in France, Germany, Spain, Poland, Italy, and in fact in *EVERY* nation on earth.
Do you know the only place in the world that used "Citizen"?
It was Switzerland. Switzerland alone used "citizen."
Now who do we know that describes this "citizen" thing, and comes from "Switzerland"?
It proves that all these people pushing this "English common law" claim, are not so smart as they think themselves to be.
Circa 1782 if memory serves.
He did so in reference to U.S. Americans.
The leadership was using the term "citizen." Thomas Jefferson deliberately changed the word "subject" in his draft of the Declaration of Independence to "citizen." He erased "subject", and wrote in "citizen."
As i've told others, "Citizen" was a Swiss practice at the time. All the other nations said "Subject." Only Switzerland said "citizen."
The Framers had read Vattel. Pretty much everyone in a position of leadership during the founding/framing era, had read Vattel, and were familiar with the concept.
The Yokels out in the states, who had not been privy to the discussions of the national leadership, some of them continued to use "Subject", because they hadn't yet gotten the message that we were switching to "Citizen".
It is for this reason that conflating the "natural born subject" with "Citizen" is wrong headed. The two terms are founded on different philosophical principles.
"Subject" is inherently monarchist, while "Citizen" is Republican.
But modern people have tried to create a Frankenstein monster by arguing English law for the Republican concept of "citizen".
You say, There was a specific reason why the founders declined to identify and describe what exactly an NBC is. Do you know why? I do.
You then cite an article from 2016 by law professor Malinda L. Seymore of Texas A&M as your expert. Why? Can you explain yourself as to why you think this person has the definitive answer?
In Federalist #68, Alexander Hamilton explained their intent with confidence that they handled the NBC matter themselves quite well. Now you suggest otherwise.
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.Hamilton explicitly wrote "But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention," but you now claim that the Framers punted the definition of NBC to Congress.
Didn't Hamilton mean that "creatures of their own" raised by "foreign powers" were the children of non-citizen parents who still held allegiance to their home country but were raising their children in the United States?
When Hamilton wrote "But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention," wasn't he referring to the natural born citizen requirement in Article II section 1? When he wrote "with the most provident and judicious attention" wasn't he stating that the Framers gave it very thoughtful consideration?
How do you square Hamilton's words with your own?
-PJ
Good Day Sir
“Natural born means born of citizen parents.”
No it does NOT! You cannot ASSUME what you are trying to show! All that Act did was say babies born to US citizens ABROAD at birth were born citizens! It did not, IN ANY WAY, say “Natural born means born of citizen parents.”
“ONLY people born overseas of citizens are natural born.”
Yes, they were saying if a baby is born to US citizens ABROAD, they are NBC. It doesn’t imply having US citizens as parents was required if born “within the realm” - to use the term all the Founders were familiar with from the well-known meaning of “Natural Born Subject”!
“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, ‘Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,’—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king....
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established....
In Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830) 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York, about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said: ‘It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the colonies of North America, while subject to the crown of Great Britain, were natural-born British subjects.’...
In U. S. 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.’ 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
How do you square Hamilton’s words with your own?
__________________________________________
These are not my words. They are words and ideas of thousands of legal scholars and historical experts who’ve attempted over 200 plus years to make sense of a vague and unclear notion.
To claim complete perfect knowledge either for or against the meaning and intent of NBC is blind stupid arrogance.
I looked that up, not on Wikipedia, since that offends you.
All the dictionary sources I used trace it back to a combination of Latin (French) and early English.
Not one word on Switzerland origin.
You need to relax some.
A person who was actually familiar with text of the Constitution would not make this argument.
Neo-con
An intelligent person wouldn't be throwing that word around, either ...
This point has been raised before, but for some reason people believing the "English law" theory, don't seem to be able to grasp it.
Yes, if being born here made you a "citizen", why wasn't everyone born here already considered a "natural born citizen"?
Yup. Idiot arrogant Judges that needed to be dragged out in the street and horsewhipped for being jackasses.
Dysfunctional courts. Completely dysfunctional. Broken.
There was a specific reason why the founders declined to identify and describe what exactly an NBC is. Do you know why?
Yes, because they all knew what it meant at the time, because they had all read Vattel.
They tossed out English common law regarding "subjects" when they tossed out "subjects" and replaced it with "citizens."
Being absolutely puzzled as to what you mean by "you've resorted to insults", I went back and re-read the comment to which you are responding.
All the way near the bottom, I see where I said "you are full of sh*t."
Now it never occurred to me that someone would see this colorful method of telling them they are wrong, as an "insult."
I'm not used to dealing with people who are so sensitive that being told they are "full of sh*t" is objectionable.
But you go ahead and refrain from discussing anything further because you felt I was being too mean or something.
One less person muddying up the waters is a good thing in my way of thinking.
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.