Replies

The term-of-art words “natural-born Citizen” are not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment nor Federal Statute 8 U.S. Code § 1401.

Thank you for posting Macho MAGA Man.

"The term-of-art words “natural-born Citizen” are not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment nor Federal Statute 8 U.S. Code § 1401."

Supreme Court Justice John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, had explained, in what appears to be an official clarification, that Law of Nations, international law when Constitution was ratified is as much the law of the United States as the Constitution is, at least when the Constitution was ratified.

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—
1^st. all Treaties made under the authority of the united States.
2^dly. The Laws of nations [emphasis added]—
3^dly. The Constitution, and Statutes of the united States—"
—John Jay’s Charge to the Grand Jury, the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, 22 May 1793

Since I understand that both of Harris's parents were still immigrants when she was born, based on Jay's clarification of the importance of Law of Nations in US law, she is not a natural born citizen of the US, therefore not constitutionally qualified to be either POTUS or VP based on the intentions of the drafters of the Constitution imo.

Also, since Congress and renegade states have repeatedly proven that they are an enemy of the people imo, it is now up to Democratic and Republican Trump supporters to effectively "impeach and remove" ALL (exceptions?) state and federal lawmakers and executives in November.

In fact, it's up to us Trump supporters to take the first MAJOR step in draining the swamp by supporting Trump 47 with a new, Constitution-respecting Congress, new state lawmakers too, not only so that he will not be a lame duck president from the first day of his second term, but will support him to quickly finish draining the swamp.

Finally, let's not allow the anti-Trump media try to fade our memories of what we witnessed on July 13.

It’s not a “term of art” but rather a requirement set forth in Article II Section 2 Clause 5 of The Constitution. It is the only place in which it is used and is NOT synonymous with the term “Naturalized Citizen.”

ARTICLE 2

SECTION 1

CLAUSE 5

US CONSTITUTION

You said, “The term-of-art words “natural-born Citizen” are not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment nor Federal Statute 8 U.S. Code § 1401.”

Hmmm. I could just swear I have heard those words before. . .

LIGHTBULBS! Wong Kim Ark!

“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]”

Then, the Court declares:

“II. 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.”

Here, you can read it all for yourself!

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/wong-kim-ark-natural-born-citizen/

OR, you can go the “I don’t need no driver’s license, to drive my car!” route.