Posted on 12/15/2020 10:14:58 AM PST by RideForever
Help Wanted.
I contacted my Congress Rep to raise interest in objecting to the Harris electors now 'certified' for Washington State. Now that we are in Art. II, or 'political' phase of the Presidential election, the Natural Born Citizen ('NBC') qualification found in the US Constitution may be addressed.
Sen. Harris' parents were here on visas issued for their passports from India and Jamaica. Both countries practice birthright by bloodline, in contradiction to US policy. Clearly they were subject to the foreign jurisdictions which issued their passports. Her father became a naturalized US citizen after she was born, and he states that his daughter is not a US NBC.
Now we have a small window to file objections as voters to record an objection with the Electoral College by way of a court case, according to WA election law.
birthright citizenship is per statute but not in the constitution or amendments.citizen-yes,natural born-no...
Harris is an anchor baby. NBC is in the constitution but has never been litigated. I’m pretty certain that i know how scalia would have looked at this,not so sure about the current bunch.
Yes, she is.
Feel free to go down the river like Orly Taitz, but no one here will follow you.
Incorrect. Birthright citizenship has been the practice in this country since its founding, and before that under English law. It was formally coded into the Constitution in the 14th Amendment. It is there.
"Harris is an anchor baby. NBC is in the constitution but has never been litigated. I’m pretty certain that i know how scalia would have looked at this,not so sure about the current bunch."
In fact it has been litigated, and birther theories haven't won. The history is pretty clear on this. Scalia would have ruled that someone born in the US is a natural born citizen. There really isn't any doubt about this.
Ridiculous. There is no such distinction in the amendment. It says "ALL PERSONS".
"Ntural Born is in the Constitution......much earlier."
There's no conflict between the "natural born citizen" clause and the 14th. However, if there were, it's not the earlier law that wins. That's not how it works.
There is no place in the Constitution where that appears.
No it doesn't. It says that there is no doubt such people are citizens. Everyone agrees. There is no doubt that such people would be citizens. That does not mean they are the only ones that are, and that's not what it says. It's not offering a definition.
"Reference, should you care to read instead of post garbage -"
Old news. Been all over this years ago. It doesn't say what birthers pretend it says.
You go ahead and believe what you want and I'll go by what I was taught. Just because you claim "false" or "not true" does not change my beliefs.
That's right. And they weren't teaching the birther version of the Constitution.
"You go ahead and believe what you want and I'll go by what I was taught. Just because you claim "false" or "not true" does not change my beliefs."
As I've already said, you weren't taught that. And what sense does it make to think your elementary school teacher is the ultimate authority on this subject? Silly.
Children born of illegals are NaturaLIZED citizens, not Natural BORN citizens. NBC is “born of 2 citizens on US soil”. The SCOTUS refused to do their job and look into this with Berg vs. Obama, thus ushering us officially into an oligarchy and no longer a constitutional republic.
Get THAT through YOUR thick skull, Bozo.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2168149/posts
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.