See the "3 Legged Stool Test for Natural Born Citizen": https://www.scribd.com/doc/185258103/Three-Legged-Stool-Test-for-Natural-Born-Citizen-to-Constitutional-Standards ... and ... the Euler Logic Diagram below.
Posted on 01/12/2024 11:30:39 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
(Jan. 12, 2024) — Following up on the presidential eligibility posts recently appearing at The P&E here and here, the New York Post – founded, BTW, by Alexander Hamilton in 1801 – has come out and slammed President Trump’s suggestion that Nikki Haley is likely ineligible to the presidency. The Post labels President Trump’s suggestion that Haley is not a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) under the Constitution as being “bonkers.”
Really? Where to start, where to start?
First, President Trump’s post questioned Nikki Haley’s eligibility primarily in terms of her pursuit of the presidency, but it also addressed her likely disqualification for the vice-presidency under the 12th Amendment. Problematically, the Post article misinforms its readers when it asserts that “[t]he 12th Amendment lays out the procedure for electing the president and vice president and makes no mention of eligibility.” (Emphasis added) Alterian, Inc.
Even the most cursory review of the actual language of the 12th Amendment reveals that its final sentence states: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” (Emphasis added) Like the caveman said in the Geico commercial from the 1980’s, “Yeah, next time, maybe do a little more research.”
Second, the author of the NY Post article, one Emily Crane, although a journalist for some 15 years with a B.A. degree in “Communications Studies” from Western Sydney University (yes, Virginia, in Australia…, not the United States), does not claim to be a U.S. Constitution scholar. Instead, she relies for her assertions on, among others, one Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago professor who, she claims, is an expert on constitutional law.
Professor Stone is quoted in the Post article ...
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Thank you for posting this.
I do not think Nikki has dual allegiance. She has no allegiance to the US.
Obama has blown the threshold on this one. The bar is set.
That is more a case for adherence to the original intent of the Constitution, is it not? We’ve seen, “in living color”, what ignoring it brings us. We are still living with our mistakes.
You’d have more success keeping Haley off the ballot by criticizing her actual policy positions than by taking another L on the subject of birthright citizenship.
If it means that much to you, advocate for Congress to introduce a statute, or for a Constitutional amendment, to codify the definition of “natural born citizen” that you desire. Because as it stands, current statute/court precedent is overwhelmingly stacked against you.
Foreign powers HAVE gained an improper ascendant in our councils. And they have all been invited in under by the auspices of the Democrat Socialist party, going back to the days of FDR and even earlier, with the full support of the Progressives, which for years hid themselves as “Republicans”, giving rise to the Uniparty that generated the Deep State, that vast administrative branch of government that does not respond to elections, the legislature, or the judiciary. And apparently, impeachment has ceased to be a remedy, as removal from office rarely happens any more. When people no longer have a sense of shame, they will NOT resign.
The rot is far advanced.
1. “...advocate for a statute, or for a Constitutional amendment, to codify the definition of “natural born citizen” that you desire.”
If the definition of nbC is so blatantly abused now, what makes you think that that would make a difference (”Okay, now we’re really going to follow the law”) ?
2. “... current statute/court ruling is overwhelmingly stacked against you.”
Read the article again, with comprehension this time.
-fJRoberts-
Yup. Nikki Hankles is all WEF, all the time.
All of what you vote as adverse judicial outcomes/precedents would vanish in an instant if an on-point case or controversy with the correct procedural posture reached SCOTUS on a day in which enough justices had eaten their Wheaties.
Bkmk
She’s not eligible Jim.
Wishing for an "on-point case or controversy with the correct procedural posture" is about as effective as Chris Christie's primary campaign.
It hits all of the same tired beats that have been ongoing since 2008 at least: citing Vattel's book on *international law*, the Federalist Papers, John Jay's letter to Washington...
Beyond contemporary references to current political events, the argument is quite literally nothing new.
Most of my mid-70s HS classmates could tell you who is and who isn’t a natural born citizen. Civics was required to graduate. Sadly, I’m sure many of them voted for a presidential candidate that failed to meet both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
Most of my mid-70s HS classmates could tell you who is and who isn’t a natural born citizen. Civics was required to graduate. Sadly, I’m sure many of them voted for a presidential candidate that failed to meet both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
It’s the only circumstance under which a straight answer can be gotten out of SCOTUS. They might mention the requirement in passing when deciding on the Trump ballot issue (14th Amendment “insurrection”).
This idea shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the natural law influence from whence the founders derived "natural born citizen."
"Natural law" was a big thing in 1776 and 1787. People nowadays do not even know what it is. They don't grasp this "natural law" stuff. They think you can pass a statute to change the laws of nature.
You cannot pass a statute to change the laws of nature.
You forgot the most important one. The founders dropping the "natural born subject" and replacing it with "natural born citizen" which was an uncommonly used word in the English language of that era.
In 1770s English "citizen" meant "dweller in a city." It did *NOT* mean "member of a nation", except in Switzerland, where it meant exactly that.
The fact the founders changed it from the far more common and understood term "subject" to the far less common "citizen" show their intent that our system was modeled after the Swiss Republic, where the word had always been used in that manner since the 14th century.
Also, i've posted that lawbook from Pennsylvania which flat out says our "citizenship" comes from Vattel, and the people most likely to know what was intended by the Convention (held in Philadelphia in 1787) was the Philadelphia legal community, which is exactly where that book came from.
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.