Case closed.
I care more about his response to Israel defending itself than about where his parents were born. The birthplace concept is something from a different era in which people were subjects to kings. I’d trust some foreign-born legal immigrants more than I trust some American-born citizens whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower.
Paging Kalamity Harris and Barak Insane O’Bama ...
Here we go again...
That's not the law or how the US Supreme Court works. Both Ramaswamy and Kamala Harris are NBCs under existing US law and court rulings.
Bloggers making up interpretations of the law and court decisions change nothing. Flaming those who point this out changes nothing too.
BTTT
In the fantasy world where this is the legal standard, very interesting.
But we’re in this world.
I’m more interested in the face he supported the Arab animals who tied together 20 toddlers and set them on fire. And raped women so abusively that they died of broken pelvises.
Vivek Ramaswamy admitted during live interview in Sep 2023 on NBC News that neither of his parents when he was born were citizens of the USA. ... Vivek Ramaswamy is thus NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. To be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States one must be at least a second generation Citizen, i.e., a person born in the USA to parents who were both U.S. Citizens when their child is born in the USA.
This is STILL total nonsense, and nonsense it will remain, no matter how manuy time this wingnut repeats it.
Chester Arthur's father was not a citizen when he became either Vice President, or President. Barack Obama became President with a non-citizen father. Vice President Kamala Harris was born to two aliens.
14A: "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." There is no secret hidden codicil referring to parents of the chile.
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. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872)
The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. 583 (1844), as published in New York Legal Observer, Volume III, 1845
It is an indisputable proposition, that by the rule of the common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States, and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all perÂsons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subjects, without reference to the status or condition of their parents.[...]
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "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," &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
The author, CDR Kerchner, brought a lawsuit with this sort of frivolous birther nonsense, against Barack Obama.
https://casetext.com/case/kerchner-v-obama-2
Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (2010) Third Circuit, July 1, 2010
III.Because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we will order counsel for Appellants to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 provides that "[i]f a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee." "The purpose of an award of attorneys' fees under Rule 38 is to compensate appellees who are forced to defend judgments awarded them in the trial court from appeals that are wholly without merit, and to preserve the appellate court calendar for cases worthy of consideration." Huck v. Dawson, 106 F.3d 45, 52 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation and citation omitted). "Damages [under Rule 38] are awarded by the court in its discretion... as a matter of justice to the appellee." Beam v. Bauer, 383 F.3d 106, 108 (3d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation and citation omitted). An "important purpose [of a damages award] is to discourage litigants from unnecessarily wasting their opponents' time and resources." Nagle v. Alspach, 8 F.3d 141, 145 (3d Cir. 1993).
"This court employs an objective standard to determine whether or not an appeal is frivolous" which "focuses on the merits of the appeal regardless of good or bad faith." Hilmon Co. v. Hyatt Int'l, 899 F.2d 250, 253 (3d Cir. 1990) (internal quotation omitted). We have stated that "an appeal from a frivolous claim is likewise frivolous." Beam, 383 F.3d at 108. Appellants had ample notice that this appeal had no merit. They should have been aware that we rejected almost identical claims in Berg, as have courts in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Barnett v. Obama, No. 09-0082, F. Supp. 2d, 2009 WL 3861788, at *4-*6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009) (holding that active and former military personnel lack Article III standing requirements to challenge President Obama's eligibility for office); Cohen v. Obama, No. 08-2150, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008) (holding that a federal prisoner who alleged that then-Senator Obama was "an illegal alien impersonating a United States citizen" lacked standing under Article III), aff'd, Cohen v. Obama, 332 F. App'x 640 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Examination of this precedent would have made it "obvious to a reasonable attorney that an appeal from the District Court's order was frivolous, [as no] law or facts... support a conclusion that the District Court judge had erred." Beam, 383 F.3d at 109. Moreover, other courts have imposed sanctions for similar reasons. See Hollister v. Soetero, 258 F.R.D. 1, 2-5 (D.D.C. 2009) (reprimanding an attorney under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) for signing and filing a complaint alleging that President Obama was ineligible to serve as president because he is not a "natural born Citizen"), aff'd, Hollister v. Soetoro, Nos. 09-5080, 09-5161, 2010 WL 1169793 (D.C. Cir. March 22, 2010); see also Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1373 (M.D.Ga. 2009) (imposing monetary sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3) against counsel who filed similar claims on behalf of members of the military), aff'd, Rhodes v. MacDonald, No. 09-15418, 2010 WL 892848 (11th Cir. March 15, 2010).
In the past, "we cautioned counsel that a finding by a District Court that a lawsuit is frivolous should serve as notice to the parties and their attorney to exercise caution, pause, and devote additional examination to the legal validity and factual merit of his contentions." Beam, 383 F.3d at 109 (quotation omitted). Although the District Court did not explicitly state that Appellants' claims were frivolous, the finding of other district courts that plaintiffs who filed complaints based on similar legal theories violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 should have served as meaningful notice that the appeal here would be frivolous.5 We therefore will order Appellants' counsel to show cause why he should not pay just damages and costs for having filed a frivolous appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 38.
IV.
For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the District Court's order of dismissal.
Both parents must be American citizens at the time of the child’s birth for the child to be eligible to be POTUS...
Nikki Haley cant be POTUS either ...
His parents had green cards. He is a citizen.
You seem to be missing something important. He was born in Cincinnati, Ohio. You could call him an anchor baby. But you can’t say he is not a citizen. Unless you just like being wrong. Here is why.
A natural born citizen typically refers to two common scenarios:
1. Birthright Citizenship:
- If you are born within the territory of a country, you are often automatically granted citizenship of that country, regardless of the nationality of your parents. This is known as birthright citizenship or jus soli (right of the soil).
2. Citizenship by Descent:
- If you are born outside the country but one or both of your parents are citizens of that country, you may be granted citizenship based on your parental lineage. This is known as citizenship by descent or jus sanguinis (right of blood).
The exact rules and processes can vary significantly from country to country, so it’s essential to check the specific laws and regulations of the respective country to understand the requirements and procedures for obtaining citizenship.
In the United States, a natural born citizen is generally understood to mean someone who was born in the U.S. or born abroad to U.S. citizen parents under certain conditions. Other countries might have different definitions or additional categories for natural born citizenship.
“Vivek Ramaswamy is NOT constitutionally eligible for the office he seeks! “
Kind of gave himself away when he started attacking Trump.
No foreign spice allowed in the person of POTUS.
Plain vanilla U.S. Americans only. Most of us (70 percent or so?) are in this category, so is it too much to ask?
The constitution very clearly set a high standard for becoming President of the United States. Be born in country of two citizen parents. Anything else as a lesser standard, which is clearly barred by the constitution, and it clearly barred Obama from ever being president.
ANNNND.... another Republican shiney object dims as the sun sets...
Fascinating. The admission suggests VR knows that he is out of the running for POTUS, VPOTUS. His shifting positions, many not in American interests and insalubrious modus operandi make that a very good thing.
Mohammed’s horse has already left the barn on this one.
Not this chit again.
Of course he’s not eligible and neither is Nicki Haley or Camel Toe Harris.