Posted on 09/08/2024 10:19:42 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(May 5, 2024) — INTRODUCTION
It is frequently argued by opponents of the “two-citizen parents” requirement of Emer de Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) found in Book 1, Ch. 19, § 212 of The Law of Nations (1758), that the requirement “is nonsense.” Indeed, the 2015 article purporting to “resolve” the meaning of the nbC term (“C&K article”) by former high officials in the Department of Justice – Solicitor General Paul Clement and Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal – completely rejects the relevance of the de Vattel nbC definition by ignoring any discussion of de Vattel or the definition in his 1758 treatise altogether. Ignoring facts, however, does nothing to eradicate them.
Instead, the C&K article deploys ipse dixit (“it is so because I say it is so”) to merely declare that “someone born to a [i.e., singular] U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States…,” adding, cryptically, that “a ‘natural born Citizen’ means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.” (Emphasis added)
Stated otherwise, the C&K article announces, ex cathedra, that as long as “a” parent – in the singular – is a U.S. citizen, that alone will suffice to render the child born abroad to that parent a “citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings [thereafter].” The C&K article then somersaults to the non-sequitur conclusion that therefore, purportedly, “a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.” (Emphasis added)
(Excerpt) Read more at calameo.com ...
So you agree that two filthy non English speaking foreign national wetbacks, who’ve never heard of the Constitution, can cross the border and drop a baby on American soil can be eligible to a President in the future?
Has anyone told us if Kamala’s parents ever became citizens? I think her father may have, but I never heard for sure. I doubt that her mother did but like I said I don’t know.
With Obama, he was born in the US, of a US citizen. With Kamala, she was born in the US, of two foreign citizens. The two are entirely different.
I remember every argument against Obama was just that, and the argument was, if he was born of two foreigners, he wouldn’t be eligible. That is called moving the goal posts writ large.
Loretta Fuddy wasn't so sure about that. She's sure now!
He likely was born in Canada, even though he claimed he was born in Africa.
YEP!
There is the text of the case. I challenge you to show me EXACTLY where "it was declared that he was a natural born citizen".
I have no idea, but the truth is something we will know sometime after we join “the sheaves” in Paradise
Oh look! Somebody else who struggles with the English language. Look, you silly goobers tried this nonsense back in 2009(?), and the Ankeny Court, and the Ankeny Appeals Court both told you the same thing. That the 14th Amendment was simply the embodiment of 5 or 6 centuries of prior English and American law, regarding natural born citizenship. Those courts and others, also told you that your silly theories were just some nonsense that you pulled out of your rear ends.
But you didn’t listen then, and you won’t listen now, because you are insane. You are the same kind of insane, that Sovereign Citizens and transexuals are, and flat-earthers, and moon-landing deniers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm_08HhGYJ0
A natural born citizen needs no grant of government for citizenship.
Playing by Alinsky's Rules For Radicals is no longer an effective tactic. It has long run its course.
“Yet people like you can’t get past the simple fact that the
14th Amendment can’t make somebody a natural born citizen.”
Yet people like you can not read the Wong Kim Ark case and realize that the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment was simply an enacted protection of the centuries old common law doctrine that birth within the country, and under the jurisdiction of the country, made a natural born citizen.
You.Just.Don’t.Get.It.
I don’t know why you don’t get it. Maybe you’re just stupid. Maybe you have some kind of mental disorder. Maybe you are just stubborn.
But whatever is wrong with you, is not just restricted to the NBC thingy. It is the same thing that is wrong with Sovereign Citizens. And, the pro-transexual crowd. And Flat Earthers. And Moon landing deniers.
Maybe it is something in the water? Like florine. I found this, online:
” Fluoride not only affects bone and teeth, but it also impacts young children in the development of the brain. Exposure to fluoride before birth could lead to poorer cognitive outcomes in the future.
Higher levels of fluoride lead to low scores in IQ tests.”
To me, that is the interesting thing. What exactly is wrong with you two-citizen parent NBC nincomppops? And, sovereign citizens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_94523Efxo
Out of your own mouth.
You.Just.Don’t.Get.It.
Oh, I got it, and out of your own mouth.
This implies that the facts and evidence were placed before the voters, and they made an informed decision. The very opposite is true. Not only were they misled, the facts and evidence were kept away from them.
The leadership, whom they trusted to take care of details like "Is this guy legally qualified?" did not do their jobs, but nobody told the public.
The public went into the voting booth thinking that "if there was a problem with his legitimacy, then someone would stop it. The fact that he is on the ballot, must mean everything is okay. "
But you are right about "No court would date touch it now."
Firstly, they have been greatly misled by people "interpreting" the meaning of "natural born citizen" for them. The legal system is filled with people who do not know the truth, never bothered to learn it, and now continue to propagate mistaken erroneous ideas, and regard the matter as settled law.
Secondly, they are cowards, and do not want to touch this thing that might potentially burn their fingers.
People are mistaken in their thinking that you must go through a naturalization process to be naturalized.
This is not correct. Congress has created statutes which naturalize people at birth, and do not require a naturalization process. The "Citizenship act of 1952" is an example of people being naturalized at birth, and none of them have to go through a naturalization process, but many of them have to meet certain requirements to retain their citizenship.
Mario Aldo Bellei is an example of a "citizen" who was naturalized at birth, (He was born to an American mother) but who lost his citizenship for failing to meet the requirements set by Congress in order to keep his citizenship.) (Rogers v Bellei)
Natural born citizens can't lose their citizenship for failing to do something. Citizens created by a naturalization statute, can.
I think if Kamala had remained outside the country for the first 21 years of her life, she would have lost her citizenship. This clearly shows the difference between a natural citizen, and a "naturalized" citizen.
Can a natural born citizen lose his citizenship by not meeting the residency requirements set out in the naturalization act which made him a citizen?
Oh wait. There *IS* no "naturalization act" for an actual natural citizen. There are only "naturalization acts" for non-natural citizens.
This is the same lying, deceptive argument that has been put forth ever since the Constitutional Convention, and most especially by William Rawle, who wrote a famous law book pushing this very wrong, and proven wrong, idea.
The clue is in the word "Subject." A "Citizen" is not a "Subject", and the concept is not even based on the same philosophical foundation.
Subjects are Monarchical, while "Citizens" emerge from Republics.
It makes perfect sense for a King to decree that everyone born on his land owes loyalty to him, because that serves his interest and his power.
Citizen, on the other hand, has *ALWAYS* been defined as the descendant of citizens. Even Aristotle, that Greek guy from thousands of years ago, defined a "Citizen" as someone who descended from a Citizen.
The Romans defined "Citizen" as someone who descended form a Roman father.
Citizen has *NEVER* been defined as someone born on the King's land. That word is "Subject", and that is exactly what we threw off in 1776 when we decided that we would rule ourselves.
I looked into the issue expecting to confirm your contention, but I could not find a convincing strict constructionist (that is, the common understanding of the term in effect in 1787) argument in favor of it.
The terms are analogous, but built on very different foundations and with very different and well known definitions.
The founders intended that we would be "citizens", and not "subjects." Therefore, they are making it plain that we aren't following British common law on the matter, we are following the normal meaning of Citizen in regards to a Republic.
Citizens descend from citizens. Since the Greek era, "Citizen" meant "Parents are citizens."
John Jay spoke and read French fluently. His family was *FROM* France.
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.