Already destroyed by the Kenyan Obama
It boils down to this:
No foreign spice at birth.
Plain vanilla U.S. Americans only, please.
Both had at least one foreign parent.
Now, who has the guts to deal with it? Everybody will blame "Trump" for pushing it. We know what the SCOTUS should find if they bring it up. Oh, but who has standing to ask? Every single American citizen, or should.
Then what? A Mooch switcheroo at the DNC Convention?? Those people are capable of anything.
Kamala fits Mark Levin’s U.S. NBC definition circa 2013 when he was pushing the Cubamerinadian Ted Cruz for prexy:
Anyone born to any parents anywhere in the known universe, other than someone born outside the United States to two non-U.S. citizen parents.
one stop refresher on how to lose an election by focusing on bullshit.
“Kamala Devi Harris”
The article deleted the “L” at the end of Kamala’s middle name...
"The Natural Born Citizen Conundrum"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
The so-called Natural Born Citizen Conundrum may be deliberate smoke and mirrors.
More specifically, I looked for all references to John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in the referenced article, but could not find the excerpt below from his writings. It appears to be a short list of categories of official United States laws, Jay including the Law of Nations in the list.
Excerpted from the writings of Chief Justice John Jay:
"That you may percieve more clearly the Extent and objects of your Inquiries, it may be proper to observe that the Laws of the united States admit of being classed under three Heads or3 Descriptions—"1st. all Treaties made under the authority of the united States.—John Jay’s Charge to the Grand Jury, the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, 22 May 17932dly. The Laws of nations [emphasis added]—
3dly. The Constitution, and Statutes of the united States—"
We're being scammed by the DC uniparty elite imo.
Finally, let's not allow the anti-Trump media try to fade our memories of what we witnessed on July 13.
Down the Memory Hole: Google Hides Autocomplete Suggestions Related to Trump Assassination Attempt (7.28.24)
Until the Supreme Court defines “Natural Born Citizen” we will not know who can or can not be president.
Commander:
I’m 77. I remember my fourth grade teacher telling us an NBC means both parents are citizens. Apparently the left has disappeared history books stating that.
Glenn Beck used to have “Wall Builders” founder David Barton on as a guest, and he has said they have many old historical documents and books in their collection.
Their website https://wallbuilders.com/ state:
“America is Built
on a Firm
Foundation
Have you been looking for documented
truth about our nation’s history?
Do you support Christian ideals of
freedom in America?
Do you struggle knowing where to start
looking for answers?”
Have you talked with David Barton? I asked the question on his facebook page but didn’t get a reply.
Maybe someone with your gravitas can get him to look for old text books in his collection. teaching the two citizen parent requirement I was taught, in the 1950’s. Libs and FogBowers (I repeat myself) have denied this was ever taught, and it burns me up.
Thanks very much for your time.
Natural Born Citizen means those born within and under the authority of the realm. That is what it meant at the time it was written, and if the Framers meant for it to mean something other than the understood meaning of the phrase at the time they wrote it, they would not have used the term, and obviously would have spelled out eligibility not using a phrase but by a precise definition. Moreover, this has also been adjudicated multiple times to confirm this. So anyone born in the United States to parents legally within and under the authority of the United States is a Natural Born Citizen. Easy to look up, easy to verify.
Anything said to the contrary is objectively false.
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, 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.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 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."
Wong Kim Ark,, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898)
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that"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,"
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
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.
In re Look Tin Sing, Circuit Court, California, 21 Fed R 905 (1884), Opinion of the Court by U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1863-1887) Stephen Field, sitting as a Circuit Court justice.
At 21 Fed R 906:
The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares that “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.” This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country. This ex-territoriality of their residence secures to their children born here all the rights and privileges which would inure to them had they been born in the country of their parents.
At 21 Fed R 908-909:
With this explanation of the meaning of the words in the fourteenth amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it is evident that they do not exclude the petitioner from being a citizen. He is not within any of the classes of persons excepted from citizenship, and the jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of his birth was exclusive of that of any other country.
Ludlam v. Ludlam, 84 Am. Dec. 193, 26 New York 356 (1863), first Headnote at 193,
Common Law at Time of Adoption of Federal Constitution Determines Question of Citizenship, in the absence of any other law upon the subject.
Munro v. Merchant, 26 Barb. 383 at 384 (1858) headnote states,
“A child born in this state of alien parents, during its mother’s temporary sojourn here, is a native born citizen.”
At 400-401, Opinion of the Court
It is further contended, on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff himself is an alien. He was born in Ballston Spa, in this state, while his father was a resident of Canada, and returned to his father's domicil, with his mother, within a year after his birth. His mother was temporarily there—without any actual change of residence, either on her part or that of his father. It is argued that, at common law, a natural born subject was one whose birth was within the allegiance of the king. (Bac. Ab. tit. Alien, A. Com. Dig. A. and B. 7 to 18. Bl. Com: 336, 74.) The cases of children of ambassadors, born abroad, and of children born on English seas were considered exceptions. Chancellor Kent, in his commentaries, defines a native born citizen to be- a person born within, and an alien one born out of, the jurisdiction of the United States. (2 Kent's Com. 37—50.) In Lynch v. Clarke, (1 Sand. Ch. B. 583,) the question was precisely as here, whether a child born in the city of New York of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn there, was a native born citizen or an alien; and the conclusion was, that being born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, he was a native born citizen, whatever was the situation of the parents at the time of the birth.