Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 07/15/2024 4:37:14 AM PDT by xzins
Democrat Senator Kamala Harris (CA) could be in for an unwelcome campaign surprise if she faces a constitutional eligibility challenge to her bid for the presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at drrichswier.com ...
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
No it doesn't. William Rawle worked diligently to infuse American legal thinking with that idea, but it isn't factually correct. He was successful and convincing a large number of people that it was, but it is factually wrong.
If we were to be following English Common Law, our "citizens" would be called "subjects", not "citizens."
Citizen, in the modern meaning of the word, does not come from England. It comes from Switzerland, as in the Swiss Republic.
All other nations in the world at that time used "Subject." Only Switzerland said "Citizen."
And what great author of natural law philosophy came from Switzerland? Well several in fact, but I am referring to Vattel.
A Natural Born Subject/Citizen is defines by Blackstone as:
Stop quoting *SUBJECT* and then trying to append "Citizen" onto the back of the definition for Subject. You are trying to deliberately mislead people.
A subject and a citizen are distinctly different. A subject owes perpetual allegiance to the king, and the very concept of renouncing your allegiance is regarded as treasonous.
A "Citizen" is a member of a Republic. Look up how "Citizens" have always been defined in Republics. You can go all the way back to Aristotle, and the definition has always been the same. "Citizens" come from Parents who are citizens. They don't come from being born on land the King owns.
Aristotle defined a citizen to be one who's parents are citizens. (Book III section II)
But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices....
But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;
It has nothing to do with the 14th amendment and naturalizing parents.
A baby born on US soil and within US jurisdiction does not transform its parents into citizens. That is just not discussed by anyone.
The baby does not define anything about parents, other than perhaps a green card, which is permanent resident alien, and is not a citizen — and thus has nothing to do with naturalization.
Dragging parents into the matter just makes it all meaningless. Suppose a parent of a baby born on US soil within US jurisdiction suddenly renounces citizenship. At the moment of birth. Maybe the birth is only 1/2 completed and they renounce citizenship.
It will not affect the baby. The baby is not responsible for the parents in any way provided there is no aspect of jurisdiction. A renounced citizen standing in an Iowa hospital is not outside US jurisdiction.
The only defined aspect of jurisdiction is diplomatic immunity. There is no other immunity from jurisdiction. How can people imagine there would be after Assange was prosecuted and convicted by plea bargain of US laws when he is not even a US citizen. Jurisdiction is everything.
False!
George Washington relied on Vattel. He owned his book on citizenship.
Where’s the “Not This **** Again” picture.
The dumb(bleep)ery of NBC kooks on this site is overwhelming.
You misspelled 'daffynition' ...
That was because the dems wanted obama. They DON’T want kamala. And they don’t care about the law. They use it for convenience. It might be a convenient way to get rid of harris.
It tells me that honoring the provisions of our Constitution isn’t the highest concern of some in politics. I guess that might indicate that many of them are not truly what could be called “public servants”.
As I stated, when the states at independence kept the Common Law, the word subject was transformed to citizen. Vattel is foreign law, not the Common Law.
Wrong, Vattel was writing about European civil law, not the Common Law. Blackstone is the primary source for Common Law definitions, not Vattel.
A baby born on US soil and within US jurisdiction does not transform its parents into citizens. That is just not discussed by anyone.
Nobody said that. I don't know why you are even suggesting anyone said that.
Dragging parents into the matter just makes it all meaningless.
One might argue that an adopted child is as equally precious as a child born of your blood, but when it comes to your core essence, your DNA, your blood child has it, while your adopted child doesn't.
Citizenship is like that. You may be born in a house, but this doesn't make you a member of the family. You must be either born of their blood, or adopted by them to be a member of the family.
Citizenship is exactly like this.
Everyone who gets citizenship from being born on American soil is an *ADOPTED* child. They aren't blood. To be blood, you must come from blood.
The 14th amendment is a naturalization law. It doesn't make people "natural born." It makes them adopted.
As Reagan said: "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they are ignorant... it's that they know so much which isn't so."
We tossed out Subject law. It was incompatible with a Republican form of Government. Laws declaring ownership over a child the minute it is born are contrary to natural law. They are monarchy law, and they suit the needs of a monarchy. They make servants of anyone born under their roof or on their land.
We kept the routine and usual parts of English common law. We tossed out everything that was incompatible with natural law, i.e. American law. We tossed out "Corruption of Blood." We tossed out taxes going to the Church of England. We tossed out Debtor's prison, and we tossed out subjectude and replaced it with citizenship.
The founders *DID NOT* transform "subject" into "citizen." They explicitly chose "citizen" to replace "subject", and they meant to sever all ties with monarchist law.
Born in the US, then moved to Canada until after she was 18. So Chinese Commies coming to the US to give birth to a child, then returning to China, have created a possible future President?
Exactly
“This could be easily argued by the anti-kamala faction.”
Yes, and more easily dismissed by any Court that looked up Wong Kim Ark.
And here you come again out of some Sovereign Citizen crawl space. C’mom, go full retard and tell everybody that don’t need a driver’s license, or tags or insurance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2jdx-GtHo4
The court is irrelevant if all they want is an argument to replace her at a convention. That can’t be argued before a court. It’s over in a few days and then a campaign and election. Not to mention that a political party is a private organization.
That said, Wong kim is different. His parents had already applied, iirc. So the dems would have a counter to that argument in the few days that a convention lasts.
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.