Posted on 07/22/2024 9:33:51 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Jul. 22, 2024) — Trump will have the legal standing in federal courts to do so if she is nominated for that office by the DNC. And Trump should do so to force SCOTUS to take up the issue of the “natural born Citizen” term as it applies to whom can constitutionally serve as the President and Commander in Chief (and VP per the 12th Amendment) and resolve it. The courts evaded the issue using “lack of standing by the plaintiffs” for Obama and then also for Harris for VP. They should not do that again. Former Chief Justice Marshall‘s words from the past tell them they should not evade the issue.
To Kamala Harris: Fool the voting electorate once, shame on you. Fool the voting electorate twice, shame on us. She owes allegiance since birth to the English monarch – formerly Queen Elizabeth and now King Charles! Click on the image below for more details.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
I understand the argument. I just don’t think it will get any traction. Obama set the standard going forward.
Didn’t JimRob say to cut out the “Birther” name-calling years ago?
Against whom does the NBC clause operate?
Parties? State officials? Voters? Electors? Congress? The Chief Justice?
Don’t forget about the layers on the pic (that they forgot to merge), the background that didn’t match up.. and there was something about the date (date-stamp) that was awry too (remember the date did not match the stamp for the other birth certificates before and after Obunghole on that day).
(Also, something about twin girls that one was missing a BC?)
Not to mention the many social security numbers he had (including the one off of a dead man from Connecticut), and immediately, when people starting calling that out, they stopped social security numbers being regional, so they couldn’t use that method to trace anyone anymore.
As I said before, and I’ll say it again, it’s a leadership issue.
Mr. Trump can challenge Harris to lead with him for a common cause as two national leaders addressing a national cause.
Again, he can explain to her this action has nothing to do with her competency or loyalty but everything to do with the security of the nation, something they are both pledged to do as presidential officeseekers. He can point out that most Americans are natural-born citizens and that he would have no issue if Michelle Obama was her Vice-President...just in case.
It’s even a good political issue because it’s a winning issue. It’s a Constitutional issue. It’s an issue voters can sink their teeth into. Just look at what’s happening here in this forum.
Lastly, whether you like it or not, this issue is going to raise its head, and Mr. Trump had better be prepared to face it head-on rather than run away from it like a scared rabbit or hide his head in shame for bringing it up with Barrack in the first place.
The natural born Citizen eligibility term only applies to who can constitutionally serve as the President and Commander in Chief once the founding generation was gone. See Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. And via the 12th Amendment, last line, it was made applicable to the office of Vice President too. For all other political offices basic U.S. Citizenship status, by birth or naturalized, is all that is needed.
For more on the kinds of Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution see: https://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
To learn more about how and why the natural born Citizen term, a Natural Law and laws of nature type of citizenship, was placed into the U.S. Constitution read: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf
Also here is a Boolean Logic Diagram showing how the various kinds of U.S. Citizen kinds relate to each other which can be used to prove the truth or fallacy of arguments otherwise: https://www.calameo.com/books/005841003ab51703ced4b
My question to you is this:
Who is supposed to enforce the NBC clause, and at what stage of the process?
For example, there is no “running for President” in the Constitution. There is also no “voting for President”.
If an non-NBC were on the ballot, and won, say, California, would it be the responsibility of the Legislature to not appoint the relevant Electors? Would it be the responsibility of the Electors to vote for someone else? Etc.
The Supreme Court is not going to go there.
Wouldn’t an Indian citizen also have some British ties? I don’t know the answer. So it may be a stupid question.... INTERNET here I go.
OMG, may as well be a female Biden, lowest IQ in DC, and hard core socialist.
It doesn’t matter if it is relevant and divisive. How many Chinese citizens have been birthed in the US, and are now dual citizens. Eligible to be President too. It has been going on for years now. It is a tourism thing, and they do it in Canada again.
Someday a Chinese Man or Woman, will show up and run for office, never having lived here. What do we do then?
Kamala was and is a subject of the British crown. She has dual citizenship, like Trumps Son in Law.
Per the Founders and Framers design and intent in our U.S. Constitution, the Electoral College was to be the first check and balance, the Congress the second, and if a legal challenge is mounted to any of those constitutional bodies decision, then federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court the third. Unfortunately the Electoral College has been completely neutered by the two major political parties enacting state legislature passed laws forcing electors to not vote per their oath to the Constitution but to the outcome of the popular vote, which defeats the power of that first step check and balance. And the far-left major media pressure basically has defeated the Congressional challenges to questionable electoral college votes and ineligibility of a candidate for the high office they seek. And the federal courts and SCOTUS are ducking their responsibility to take up cases challenging the “natural born Citizen” term as it applies to a President and CinC or VP candidates.
Yes the Roberts Supreme Court has been evading the issue of “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Justice Thomas stated that before a subcommittee of Congress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu6OiTiua08
The Roberts led court has been cowards in not supporting their oath to the U.S. Constitution and to take a case when it needs to be decided and goes to the heart of a term in the U.S. Constitution, as former Chief Justice Marshall said a long time ago: https://www.scribd.com/doc/21575466/Chief-Justice-John-Marshall-Quote-20091026-Issue-Wash-Times-National-Weekly-pg-15
So what is left at this stage in our countries history is to try and educate the American electorate to not vote for a constitutionally ineligible candidate, i.e., to not vote for a dual-Citizen, non-natural born Citizen, such as Kamala Harris. She fooled us once and she should not get away with fooling the electorate again! That is why I recommend that all candidates for federal political office, especially President and Commander in Chief, and the VP too, should have to file a National Security Q&A From SF-86 along with the current financial disclosure form. The voting public needs more transparency about the backgrounds of the candidates which an SF-86 form would provide. People going to work for the federal government fill one out. Candidates for federal office should too. See:
We the People Need More Information About the Backgrounds of Candidates for the Highest Political Offices.
Transparency Requirements for Candidates for President and Vice-President – More Is Needed in Our Modern Electoral Process – Filing The (OGE) Financial Disclosure Form 278e Is Mandatory – The (OPM) National Security Questionnaire Form SF-86 Should Also Be Mandatory: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2023/05/07/transparency-requirements-for-candidates-for-president-and-vice-president-more-is-needed-in-our-modern-electoral-process-filing-the-oge-financial-disclosure-form-278e-is-mandatory-the-opm-na/
> It doesn’t matter if it is relevant and divisive. <
I’m not arguing from either position. Instead I’m saying nothing will come of a “natural born” dispute. So it’s a waste of time and resources to go in that direction. It would be different if the Supreme Court was receptive to hearing the matter. But they aren’t, and never will.
In a way, it would be like Virginia arguing that West Virginia should be returned to Virginia. Maybe Virginia has a case, maybe it doesn’t. But in practice, it’s a dead issue. No sense in pushing it.
Side point #1: I am VERY suspicious of Obama’s eligibility. My friends and I still talk about occasionally. It’s good for conversation, but otherwise it’s a dead issue.
Side point #2: As to the Chinese-American born here but never having lived here, the Founders evidently thought of such a possibility. A little-known requirement for being president is that you must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.
Good thinking by those old guys.
That’s a mature response to a reasonable debate.
If all your “research” proves your position why has nothing happened?
Re: If all your “research” proves your position why has nothing happened?
—————-
Who knows? Maybe it’s like stolen elections? Sort of like the proverbial elephant in the room.
Challenge her eligibility and let them enjoy some payback. While that is going on submit a request to Canada to search their immigration files to see if she ever applied and received Canadian Citizenship when her mother moved there.
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.