Posted on 08/10/2024 2:40:45 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
This morning the Defendants in The 134 PAC's voter intimidation lawsuit in Fort Worth, added Jane Nelson, the Texas Secretary of State, as a Cross-Defendant. These local activists, sued Secretary Nelson to keep Kamala Harris and Nicole Shanahan off the Presidential ballot in Texas because, they claim, neither of them are "natural born citizens" and therefore cannot appear on any state's ballot for the Presidential election. If Secretary Nelson does not remove them from the ballot, they also seek Secretary Nelson's removal from office, criminal prosecution and damages.
(Excerpt) Read more at the134pac.org ...
Yeah, they've all been infected with the same mind virus.
That’s not the point. The fact that Obama used Certifigate to enrage the NBC kooks only served to make fools out of Qbots, Birthers and people like them.
And that trick still works today. Here we have FReepers solely focused on such a lame, stupid, irrelevant issue that went nowhere and will continue to go nowhere.
When these FReepers should be focusing on real concerns like the economy, the border, anti semitism, the War in Ukraine, and dozens of other vital issues.
I’m ambivalent
Well he isn't, and I was backing Cruz in 2016. I just decided that after Obama, if the Democrats weren't going to adhere to it, there was no reason we should bother adhering to it either.
The dicta in Wong Kim Ark even says that anyone born outside of the US is a "naturalized" citizen. I can find it and quote it for you if you want, but the same court that everyone holds out as the "authority" on citizenship, says that anyone born under Cruz's circumstances is a "naturalized" citizen.
What the HELL are you talking about?
When and where have I gotten off the subject by focusing on Arms.
So where are you coming from blathering on about Arms and Switzerland?
(The courts have ruled in favor of jus soli)
Which case?
I just decided that after Obama, if the Democrats weren’t going to adhere to it, there was no reason we should bother adhering to it either.
____________________________________________
So if you’re not going to adhere to the NBC issue, why are you wasting so much time in promoting it as relevant?
But acknowledging that the courts are full of lazy morons is not the same thing as acknowledging their position is correct.
I have researched this topic likely better than anyone else on Free Republic, and there is significant evidence that the common legal view is just wrong.
I wouldn't worry about people on here discussing this topic. The greater mainstream news liars all think we are kooks anyway.
I don't think this topic is even going anywhere in the public consciousness or even the media-liar consciousness. I think most people will simply ignore it.
“I believe that Kamala Harris qualifies as a natural born citizen. My position on this matter has remained consistent over the past 16 years or so that it has been an issue.”
Well, then, there you have it. You’ve deemed it so, so it must be so. /s
Most of us call BS.
It's the same position I held through all eight years of Obama's presidency, during which time some 100+ birther lawsuits went absolutely nowhere.
I used "arms" as an example of where the Constitution mentions a word, but doesn't add all the specific details.
I point out that sometimes the details are contained within the choice of the word used. "Arms" is an example of this.
So where are you coming from blathering on about Arms and Switzerland?
When I write, I try to make my points simple enough for people to understand. Clearly in this case I failed, because your questions reveal you didn't follow what I said at all.
I despair of being able to make the point more clearly. I can try to reiterate it, arranging the words differently, but if it didn't make sense to you before, I'm thinking I won't be successful in conveying the idea to you on a second try.
And you are not alone in not being able to make sense of this particular point I have attempted to make. It seems that it is a hard point to get across for some reason.
Our usage of the word "Citizen" comes from Switzerland. Why is this important? Because of Emmerich Vattel, who explains the meaning of "Citizen" quite clearly in his book "Law of Nations."
Vattel is from Switzerland, and Switzerland was a Republic at the time, which makes it the only place in the world that used the word "Citizen" instead of "Subjects."
Our founders *PICKING* the word "citizen" means they were following Vattel's definition.
If we were following the common law of England, they would have kept the word "Subjects."
They picked *CITIZEN*. Therefore it is defined by Vattel's definition.
I stand corrected! LOL!
Tell us how great the courts are handling the J-6 cases. Also the Trump "hush money" trial, and the 34 felony counts trials.
And while we are at it, perhaps you can tell us about our successes in the courts regarding the 2020 election fraud?
Courts suck, and they are often very stupid and biased.
I get your point about subjects and citizens.
What the Founders meant to do (and failed) was use the Old English concept of Natural Born Citizenship.
Which means one must be born as a US citizen. AND both parents must also be born as US citizens.
1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Don’t involve me, the shame will be for those who deserve to be shamed, I have no part in that.
226 failed lawsuits.
But yet - NBC kooks hold out hope that maybe a few dozen more suits will work.
Maybe a few hundred more.
The Constitution was ratified in 1788. So for over 236 years there has never been a clear, concise definition of Natural Born Citizen.
“ This idiocy needs to stop”
You’re right, obviously. But it won’t, not around here.
They just need one lawsuit. One lawsuit filed by Donald Trump.
And the matter will be settled for once and for all (though unlikely in the way they had hoped for).
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.