Posted on 07/14/2023 12:30:28 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
My grandfathers were born in Brooklyn, NY and Meriden, CT in 1893 and 1895. Their four parents were subjects of Her Britannic Majesty Victoria Alexandrina and the German Emperor Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert at the time of their birth.
When both of them registered for the draft in 1917, their draft cards had three citizen statuses to choose from: 1) Natural born; 2) Naturalized; 3) Alien.
Now, neither of them were naturalized. They both chose or were assigned “natural born”, as they certainly were not aliens.
This “two citizen parents” nonsense keeps cropping up from time to time.
So, what were they, CDR Kerchner, according to your analysis?
I’d appreciate it if you quote the Constitution’s definition of “natural born citizen.”
After O’Bama there is no citizenship requirement. Anyone on earth is eligible to run for US President. It is not a valid argument.
RAB 01/16/2019 ?
“a question asked by one of the leftist Democrats” - might you know who that was?
tx
It's right next to the place where they define "Arms."
Because everyone knows *TRUTH* comes from court decisions. the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts *NEVER* make mistakes or get it wrong.
My recollection of Wong Kim Ark is they specifically do not say *NATURAL* born citizen.
They just say "citizen."
Vivek was never naturalized because he was a citizen by birth. He was not naturalized along with his parents because he was already a citizen.
He was naturalized at birth by a law passed by congress. If you look up the law, it even says "Naturalization".
The Supreme Court even refers to this type of naturalization in their Wong Kim Ark decision. They talk about "mass naturalization at birth" through a law passed by congress.
It's still naturalization.
Well you are correct so far as you are asserting the courts are broken, but not correct as a matter of truth about the issue.
The Courts would have us believe a man is a woman. The Courts are liars and the courts are idiots.
Occasionally they get something right.
Here you go:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
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.
When the framers were creating the bill of rights, they were concerned that listing some rights would make people think that only the listed rights are valid.
They sought to address this concern by creating the tenth amendment, but as it turns out, too many people did end up believing that you only have rights that are listed.
“Birthright citizenship” was confirmed in a series of court cases in the nineteenth century and was explicitly stated in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment: “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.”
Look at my tagline. It comes from John Bingham (Chief Proponent of the 14th amendment) during the debate on the 14th amendment.
*THAT* is what Congress believed it was voting for.
“Son of Greek Immigrants…”
Spot on!
Vivek Ramasawmy is a “naturalized” Citizen at/by Birth per a U.S. Naturalization Act passed by Congress under their constitutionally granted powers to “Naturalize” citizens. That is a man-made positive law. So is the 14th Amendment. And so is the WKA (1898) common law decision granting Wong Kim Ark citizenship. And to be clear, that WKA (1898) SCOTUS decision confirmed he was only a basic Citizen, not a “natural born Citizen”. Congress nor SCOTUS can create a “natural born Citizen”. The 1939 Perkins v Elg decision clearly states the set of facts in its decision that Miss Elg was a “natural born Citizen” since Miss Elg was born in the USA to parents who were both U.S. Citizens at the time of her birth. See section 4 at this webpage for a listing of key SCOTUS decisions and the actual holding and decision for each case: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
A “natural born Citizen” is created per the Laws of Nature and Natural Law, not man-made Positive Law. See this article for more about who is a “natural born Citizen”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/who-is-a-natural-born-citizen-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/ ... and ... https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2023/05/05/the-natural-born-citizen-term-is-neither-confusing-ambiguous-sexist-racist-or-overly-restrictive-if-ones-mind-is-open-to-the-truth-and-not-pettifogging-on-the-term/
Don’t remember NBC even being an issue in that election.
I’m a pretty smart guy, but I’m far from being a legal scholar on the NBC clause in the Constitution and the Amendment to that clause.
But this debate over NBC has raged on since 1787 and from that time forward the scholars and experts still disagree.
Anyone confidently stating that the Framers knew exactly what they were doing and they clearly put into words what they meant is kidding themselves.
And anyone looking back these 236 years and stating there is no ambiguity in natural citizens, natural born citizens, and naturalized citizens is just a fool.
Make your point in any way you want. And there will be legal Constitutional experts who will show you how wrong you are.
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.