These debates are 400+ deep mental masturbation.
Not more bitching about the discussion of Natural Born Citizen again!
Posted on 08/09/2024 9:34:27 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Aug. 9, 2024) — First, let us put on our thinking hat and do some simple grammatical analysis of the two terms ‘Citizen at Birth’ (“CAB”) and ‘natural born Citizen’ (“nbC”).
The first term, “CAB”, tells the reader simply WHEN the person became a Citizen, i.e., at birth.
The second term, “nbC”, tells the reader two things, i.e., WHEN the person became a Citizen, i.e., when born, and also HOW they became a Citizen, i.e., by what type of law the person became a Citizen –- Man-made laws, acts, treaties, amendments, Positive Law(s), or the Law(s) of Nature, Natural Law. The ‘natural born Citizen’ obtains their citizenship by the clear-cut natural law circumstances of their birth, with the birth being in the country and being born to two U.S. Citizen (born or naturalized Citizen) parents, via the Laws of Nature, Natural Law. No man-made law or act is needed to grant them their U.S. citizenship. ... . . . Second, for some basic logic and logical analysis of the “CAB” and “nbC” terms using set and subsets, see this Euler Diagram logic. Euler Diagram analysis is used to test the truth or fallacy of an argument. In this case the fallacy of the argument that the terms ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen at Birth” are logically identically equal is clearly disproved. The ‘natural born Citizen’ kind of Citizen is the largest subset of Citizens at Birth. The terms are NOT identically equal. Again, adjectives mean something. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
You should be asking obama why he signed his name to the committee’s 2 US parent citizens for McCain’s vetting. Oops, Barry didn’t get vetted, hmm.
“Hawaii’s 25-Year Retention Law
Hawaii law requires that medical records be retained for a minimum of seven (7) years after the last entry was made. Importantly, while medical records can be destroyed after seven years, basic patient information must be retained for twenty-five (25) years after the last chart entry. “Basic information” includes a patient’s name, birth date, a list of diagnoses and intrusive treatments with dates, and a record of all drugs prescribed or otherwise administered. Medical records of minors must be retained for seven (7) years after the minor’s eighteenth birthday; “basic information” must be retained for twenty-five (25) years after the minor’s eighteenth birthday.”
https://www.miec.com/knowledge-library/keeping-medical-records/
That would have required keeping records of his birth until 2004 I believe. They probably would have been microfilmed.
Precisely
Two Texans filed a federal lawsuit that includes a claim that Harris isn’t a natural born citizen.
Citizen does not equal natural-born citizen. Anyone who believes that it does has a thinking problem.
Why did the Founders require that a Representative be a citizen but the president be a natural born Citizen?
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States.
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;
The little information I did find suggests that the reason was the fear of a president with divided allegiance if both parents were not citizens.
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. “ .....John Jay letter to George Washington dated 25 July 1787
Citizen at birth?
How about a few days before birth?
Still a citizen?
Still a live human?
You see where I am going, right?
Citizen at rape?
THE 2 CITIZEN parents “thing” about OBAMA:
1. HOWARD DEAN NEVER CORRECTLY VETTED OBAMA-—NOT ONE LITTLE BIT
2. When rumors started swirling, Pelosi made up a “CERTIFICATE” that cleverly left out the demand for “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” status.
Both committed FRAUD.
BOTH committed ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
AS AN ADDED BONUS:
OBAMA’s “BIRTH CERTIFICATE” that he finally “produced’ was beyond a forgery.
IT was a poorly researched FORGERY:
The name of the HOSPITAL on his “BC” is the name assigned to 2 hospitals that MERGED——
THAT MERGER OCCURRED 5-6 YEARS AFTER BARRY WAS BORN...
THAT HOSPITAL NAME DIDN’T EXIST when he was born.....
BOTH PARENTS MUST ALREADY BE CITIZENS OF THE USA WHEN THE CHILD IS BORN.
CANNOT DO A MULLIGAN.
NO-—HOWARD DEAN & PELOSI DID
"At birth." The citizen is naturalized "at birth."
Why? Because that's how congress wrote the law. They could have said he is automatically naturalized 2 months before birth, or 2 months after birth, but they wrote the statute to convey naturalization "at birth."
How? 14th amendment. It naturalizes anyone born here.
Don't believe me? Read the debate on the 14th amendment. The people in congress debating it explicitly state it is a "naturalization" amendment.
Getting citizenship "at birth" through the naturalization process of the 14th amendment is not the same as "natural citizenship."
Natural citizens don't need the 14th amendment.
A portion of it has been my tagline since 2011.
Actually, my tagline is a slightly different statement of Bingham on the same topic.
I wish I knew how-to post an image. It would be the aww jeez not this again guy.
These debates are 400+ deep mental masturbation. It’s all moot why because SCOTUS has and will refuse to give standing for a case to define the NBC reference and that’s all It is as reference. Standing legal precedence is that someone born on US soil is a citizen regardless of their parents sovereignty. Don’t like it fine, but that’s what the court’s have ruled. Since we had the Big O and now a sitting VP that were born on US soil too one citizen parent and two noncitizen parents this sets a precedence that only the top Court can address. Since they refuse they are letting stand the defacto legality of the matter. Since Congress and Congress alone has the authority to define immigration and citizenship they can and should define what the term NBC means the Supremes would uphold their explicit authority to do so. Congress has dropped the ball not the court’s as the should grant standing and then tell Congress it is your enumerated job to define citizenship and immigration that much is in the constitution itself. Until then it’s all jerking it on the internet as the current legal precedence is born on US soil if the Supremes take a case it will be to return it to Congress as fix it but the current precedence stands until you change it by statue law. Again which makes all the blowharding moot.
The focal point of this issue should not be "natural born".
It should be "citizen."
The British law deals with "subjects."
Our usage of the word "citizen" derives from Switzerland, not Britain. That is the primary clue as to what the founders intended when they required citizens to be "natural born."
By tossing out "subject", and using instead "citizen", they are making it clear that they are following the Vattel understanding of natural law, not British common law dealing with "subjects."
Swiss word. Swiss meaning.
https://www.the134pac.org/post/mineral-wells-activists-sue-texas-secretary-of-state-to-keep-kamala-harris-off-the-ballot
Waste of time. Courts will throw it out. Courts are stupid and unwilling to learn better.
These debates are 400+ deep mental masturbation.
Not more bitching about the discussion of Natural Born Citizen again!
“BOTH PARENTS MUST ALREADY BE CITIZENS OF THE USA WHEN THE CHILD IS BORN.”
That’s the way it should be. Unfortunately the Constitution doesn’t say that and I don’t know that it says that in U.S. law.
It would be nice if Congress would enact clear U.S. law that had no wiggle room that defines ‘natural born’. Be nice if the Supreme Court would issue a clear and definitive ruling. There have been court cases that say that most people born in the U.S. are citizens, confirming what is said in the 14th Amendment, but the natural born part doesn’t seem to have been defined.
I think it does say that. When you say "arms" you mean guns. You don't have to mention "bullets" because they are inherent in the word "guns."
Citizen Parents are inherent in the word "citizen", which comes from Switzerland.
British used the word "Subject." They didn't use "citizen".
Vattel and the Republic of Switzerland used "citizen". We switched from "Subject" to "Citizen" to make it clear we were following natural law, not British law.
Therefore the usage of the word "citizen", literally requires a descendant of someone who is a citizen.
The term is “naturalization”. ArtI.S8.C4.1.1
Congress has the authority to decide who is not a citizen and requires naturalization. Also by inverse, who is a citizen naturally and does not need naturalization.
The reason that we are still arguing this term is that since 1790, Congress has not made the determination of what a NBC means.
Is the point of your comment that no one seemed to find a way to present a legal change on the merits of evidence to Barry's LFBC in a court of law, without getting dismissed by judges who said the plaintiffs didn't have standing? There are surely over a dozen broadly-recognized indicia of forgery on the LFBC for Barry that was available for years at the White House website during Barry's years there. With "judges" like Juan Merchan, Arthur Engoron and Tanya Chutkan, the American electorate has now seen how politicized and biased rulings have manifested when there was political mayhem to be wrought.
Registrar Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., would be able to give court testimony that the document White House Counsel Robert F. Bauer presented to the White House Press Corps and that same which has been circulated for years on the White House website, is not identical to what he certified shortly before Judith Corley took with her on a flight to Washington, DC from Honolulu in April of 2011. Bauer made at least one change, which showed (before it was deleted) that the originals Corley transported were not valid for any legal purpose.
The fact remains that Barry has not even been verified to have been born in the US by any legally-valid source document. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. could not have conferred any type of US citizenship to little Barry as Sr. was in 1961 a British subject and Stanley Ann Dunham, his ostensible mother, would not have been able to confer citizenship to him, either. The law says: "When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have been resident in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14." Dunham was only 18 in August of 1961, so did not meet the residency requirement. Barry's US passports (the first from only 2006, for a US senator) have been illegally obtained unless perchance they relied on valid legal documents that have not been publicly available that might show US citizenship for Barry.
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.