Posted on 01/02/2024 6:27:51 PM PST by Macho MAGA Man
American Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who served as managing editor of Reuters from 2011 to 2016, Paul Ingrassia, has reignited the fiery debate over what it means to be a “natural born citizen” under the U.S. Constitution—a debate with significant implications for potential presidential candidate Nikki Haley.
Published on American Greatness, Mr. Ingrassia, a Law Clerk, a two-time Claremont Fellow, and a member of President Trump’s National Economic Council, meticulously examined the constitutional provision that has been at the heart of eligibility controversies involving political figures from John McCain to Kamala Harris.
At the core of his argument is Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which Ingrassia insists unambiguously mandates that only “natural born citizens” of the United States are eligible to assume the presidency.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The distinction between “natural born citizen” and “birthright citizenship” is central to Ingrassia’s analysis. The former term, he reminds us, is expressly reserved for those born on American soil to U.S. citizen parents, a requirement not emulated for other federal offices. This stringent criterion traces back to the Founding Fathers’ fears of foreign influence at the highest level of government.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
226??? Wow. That’s more than twice the number I thought was dismissed.
Thanks for this info.
I get that nobody wants Nikki or Vivek anywhere near the White House. But to argue they aren’t NBC’s is pointless.
Wong was never affirmed an Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen. His parents weren’t legally citizens at the time of his birth.
Like with the stolen election, no court wanted to hear evidence on the natural born Citizen subject in those cases. They all said no standing. Just like the Supreme Court told Texas they had no standing.
I guess you liked having a fag foreign national using a fake name, fake birth place and fake parentage as president for 8 years. You are totally, and clearly willfully, ignorant. Or lying. I don’t care which.
It was perfectly legal when a White Republican did it in 1881.
Here is what happens when your birther blather goes to court and meets actual law and precedent. A losing record of futility of 0-226.
https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%2520CASE%2520LIST.pdf
The BIRTHER SCORECARD lists all the birther cases, the result, and the result of any appeal.
I don’t play with idiots and liars.
And as the State Department says currently,
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1
[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
I don’t play with idiots and liars
You do that inn one shot with yourself.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 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.
You mean died like the democrats thought abortion was a done deal in 1973?
I want to see this guy’s analysis of Barack Hussein 0bama’s eligibility before I read anything else he has to say.
You are clearly too dumb, stupid and ignorant to understand the legal concept of standing as a constitutional requirement. Purporting an injury shared by a hundred million others will never establish Article III standing. No matter how many times the exercies in futility is repeated, it is stupid.
Natural born citizen was established in the precedent setting case of Wong Kim Ark. The birther argument was made, measured, found wanting, and rejected.
CITIZEN STANDING
From: Constitutional Law, Sixth Edition, Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, West Publishing, 2003, pp. 84-5.
c) Citizen StandingAt least in the absence of congressional legislation authorizing the suit, a citizen lacks a sufficient personal interest to challenge government acts as unconstitutional. Her interest is viewed as an "abstract injury" and a "generalized grievance" held in common with citizens generally. While individual justices have argued that the bar to citizen standing is a prudential rule of judicial self-restraint, the Court has generally treated it as an Art. III impediment.
Examples:
(1) A citizen lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute authorizing the director of the CIA to certify expenditures as a violation of the constitutional requirement of a regular accounting of the use of public funds. United States v. Richardson (1974).
(2) A citizen has only a generalized interest, insufficient to maintain standing, in challenging the holding of reservist status by a congressman in violation of the Incompatibility Clause which prohibits members of Congress from holding other office. Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War (1974).
(3) A citizen and taxpayer lacks standing to challenge an HEW grant of surplus land under a federal statute to a religious institution as a violation of the Establishment Clause. Since the challenge was to an HEW action rather than a federal statute and since the government grant was based on the property power rather than the Taxing and Spending Clause, the challengers did not have standing under Flast as taxpayers. Nor does a citizen qua citizen have standing to challenge government action merely to correct constitutional wrongs. An Establishment Clause claim does not eliminate the Art. III requirement of personal injury. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United For Separation of Church and State (1982).
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep418208/
U.S. Supreme Court
Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee, 418 U.S. 208 (1974)Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War
No. 72-1188
Argued January 14, 1974
Decided June 25, 1974418 U.S. 208
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Respondents -- an association of present and former members of the Armed Forces Reserve opposing United States involvement in Vietnam, and five association members who were United States citizens and taxpayers -- brought a class action on behalf, inter alia, of all United States citizens and taxpayers against petitioners, the Secretary of Defense and the three Service Secretaries, challenging the Reserve membership of Members of Congress as violating the Incompatibility Clause of Art. I, § 6, cl. 2, of the Constitution, which provides that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." The District Court held that respondents had standing to sue as citizens but not as taxpayers, and, on the merits, granted partial relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held:
1. Respondents had no standing to sue as citizens, since the claimed nonobservance of the Incompatibility Clause which they assert deprives citizens of the faithful discharge of the legislative duties of reservist Members of Congress implicates only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance, and is thus merely an abstract injury, rather than the concrete injury that is essential to satisfy Art. III's "case or controversy" requirement. Pp. 418 U. S. 216-227.
2. Respondents also lacked standing to sue as taxpayers, since they failed to establish the required "logical nexus between the [taxpayer] status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated." Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 392 U. S. 102. Pp. 418 U. S. 227-228.
162 U.S.App.D.C. 19, 495 F.2d 1075, reversed and remanded.
I have seen people interpret things that way and some people are uneducated enough to believe them.
Have also heard that "natural born" equals "native born" and that natural born citizen only means not a naturalized (court/govt. paperwork determined) citizen. Those are also views held by some.
Wong was never affirmed an Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen. His parents weren’t legally citizens at the time of his birth.
Wong Kim Ark remains U.S. Supreme Court precedent today. When you have no clue what you are blathering about, that is a good time to just shut your pie hole.
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 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.
The U.S. State Department certifies Wong Kim Ark is current precedent.
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1
[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]
8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION
c. Naturalization – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth: Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a State upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (INA 101(a)(23) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (see INA 310, 8 U.S.C. 1421 and INA 311, 8 U.S.C. 1422). Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. (See 7 FAM 1140.)d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:
(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
Wong Kim Ark is a US Citizen just like a Puerto Rican US Citizen which aren’t eligible either for the presidency under Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen clause.
No, it was established under Minor v Happersett.
I get that nobody wants Nikki or Vivek anywhere near the White House. But to argue they aren’t NBC’s is pointless.
I don't favor them in the White House but they are not disqualified.
No, it was established under Minor v Happersett.
You are full of crap. It appears you must have had some prior success in blustering this crap past some people.
Minor v. Happersett did not decide any citizenship issue, as no such issue was before the court.
There is no holding of "plural parents" for birthright citizenship per Minor v Happersett.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-168 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their88 U. S. 168
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Having determined that for the purposes of the case it was not necessary to solve the doubts cited by "some authorities," the Court proceeded to not solve them.
Virginia Minor's citizenship was never in question before the court because it was a stipulated fact, agreed to by both parties before the trial. Minor, Transcript of Record, page 8:
Agreed StatementSTATEMENT
[excerpt]
It is admitted by the pleadings that the plaintiff is a native-born, free white citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri; that the defendant is a registrar, qualified and acting as such; that the plaintiff, in proper time and in proper form, made application to him to be registered and that the defendant refused to register the plaintiff solely for the reason that she is a female, (and that she possesses the qualifications of an elector in all respects, except as to the matter of sex, as before stated.)
Both parties agreed, as a matter of stipulated fact, that Virginia Minor was a native-born, free white citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, and that she was qualified as an elector in all respects, except as to the matter of sex. The question before the Court was whether a woman, being a native-born, free white citizen, could be barred from voting solely on account of sex.
The answer was yes. Nobody had a constitutional right to vote for President, whether male or female, and restrictions were a matter for the State to decide..
The Nineteenth Amendment, subsequent to Minor, did not give women the right to vote. It declared that where men had been given a right to vote, women must be granted an equal right to vote. The State retains the power to dispense with a popular vote and to elect delegates to the Electoral College via its Legislature.
See the more recent case of Gore v. Bush, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1.
However, if the Minor court, or any other prior court, had held anything whatever contrary to the holding in Wong Kim Ark, as the more recent precedent, the holding of Wong Kim Ark would prevail and strike down the prior inconsistent holding.
As the native born citizenship of Virginia Minor was a fact stipulated by both parties, there was no question of her citizenship before the court. While the Chief Justice noted that "some authorities" had doubts about some citizenship cases, the Chief Justice went on the say, "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts." And so, the Court did not resolve any such doubts by some cited but unitentified authorities.
Wong Kim Ark is a US Citizen just like a Puerto Rican US Citizen which aren’t eligible either for the presidency under Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen clause.
Persons born in Puerto Rico are born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, just like Barry Goldwater who was born in a territory.
Do you research anything you blurt out?
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_2
[United States State Department]
8 FAM 301.1-2 WHAT IS BIRTH “IN THE UNITED STATES”?(CT:CITZ-45; 12-09-2020)
a. INA 101(a)(38) (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(38)) provides that “the term ‘United States,’ when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.”
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 658-59:
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.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
169 U.S. 704The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 698, 716.
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.
149 U.S. 704
VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.
Wong Kim Ark acquired citizenship by birth while being born to two Chinese aliens.
There are two classes of citizen, and two only: natural born and naturalized. Naturalization applies only to aliens at a time subsequent to birth. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen at birth and did not need naturalization, and as a citizen was not even eligible for naturalization. That leaves only the one other category possible, natural born citizen.
No difference between natural born and birthright citizenship.
I’m not saying Haley is or isn’t.
Justice Thomas disagrees. Puerto Ricans aren’t natural born Citizens via Article 2 Section 1, the only clause that states the term, natural born Citizen. A citizen is not the same as a natural born Citizen. The only time a Citizen could be president was at the adoption of the Constitution. Anchor babies are not natural born Citizens just like US citizens of Puerto Rico.
Which poster are you from the Commie forum “Fogbow”?
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.