Posted on 01/19/2024 4:57:37 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
Nikki Haley, the daughter of two non-citizens, is patently ineligible to serve as President or Vice President under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution
The following analysis is a detailed response to critiques of an article I wrote earlier this month that garnered national attention, and was even Truthed by President Trump, shedding light on Nikki Haley’s ineligibility to serve as President or Vice President under the Constitution. My article was published originally on my Substack and American Greatness, and was titled “The Constitution Absolutely Prohibits Nikki Haley From Being President Or Vice President.” As A Threshold Matter, Nikki Haley, The Daughter Of Two Non-Citizens, Must Provide Proof That Her Parents Were Lawful Residents When She Was Born
As we head into the New Hampshire Republican primary, the presidential field has consolidated around three major candidates: Donald Trump, the frontrunner by wide margins, Nikki Haley, and Ron DeSantis. With Vivek Ramaswamy’s distant fourth place finish in Iowa and subsequent endorsement of the 45th President, Trump’s edge in New Hampshire looks insurmountable.
Recent polling suggests that he commands an outright majority of all New Hampshire GOP voters, meaning that even if all the remaining candidates dropped out and rallied around a single challenger to Trump, their collective effort would still fail – without, perhaps, outside help from Democrats and Independents. With recent reports that Ron DeSantis’ War Room has been dissolved, and all the staff being laid off in the aftermath of Iowa’s disaster, it seems to have proven true Nikki Haley’s post-Iowa declaration that the Republican Primary has now become “a two person race.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Like Hamilton, they were citizens of this country at the time of the adoption of COTUS, hence eligible.
Grandfather clause if you will.
The 14th Amendment is a glorified naturalization statute.
John Adams used the term “Natural Born Citizen” in drafts of the Treaty of Paris.
Circa 1782 if memory serves.
He did so in reference to U.S. Americans.
Just because you say it doesn’t, doesn’t mean it doesn’t!
Read footnote 12 on comment 50 maybe.
Sorry: Maybe read scanned/imaged footnote 12 as posted within of comment 49 of this thread.
Well:
The Congressional Research Service concluded in 2011:
“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; The predominant legal scholarship holds that the term natural born citizen applies, quite simply, to anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth, or by birth, and does not have to go through the naturalization process. The child of parents who are U.S. citizens, regardless of whether he or she is born abroad, fits into the category under most modern interpretations.”
https://www.thoughtco.com/presidents-not-born-in-the-us-3368103
Here is another similar narrative as to how Obama II, aka Barry Soetoro, could have been born in Kenya and still have a Hawaiian birth registration created for him in Hawaii under their very lax, wide-open for fraud birth registration laws back then: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/goatsledge/20090711%20Narrative%20O%20Kenyan%20Born.pdf
Do you mean racism by his Kenyan father’s family in Kenya?
Those CRS Memos were written by request of Nancy Pelosi and others in Congressional leadership to give Obama cover and to provide the Members of Congress with unified talking points as to what to tell their constituents in answer to all the phone calls, letters, and email they were receiving asking about Obama’s lack of Article II constitutional eligibility, and that Congress was doing nothing about it during the election and afterwards (impeachment or a quo warranto action by Congress, etc.).
The first one was written in secret and about a year later it was leaked to Attorney Mario Apuzzo who published it to the world in his blog. Then about three days later WorldNet Daily picking up the new from Apuzzo’s blog, did a major story about it.
I coincidentally was in Atty Apuzzo’s office for a meeting with him that day when the copy of the first CRS Memo re Obama and the nbC issue was delivered to Atty Apuzzo that day by express delivery service from a member of a U.S. Senator’s staff who wanted it to be public information instead, of a secret internal memo and talking point document: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/members-of-congress-memo-what-to-tell.html
In those CRS Memos, the very politically biased lawyers carefully parsed selected items of history with generous use of the ellipses in quotes in order to make Obama eligible, when he was not.
Read this excellent legal analysis by another lawyer and scholar taking apart the legal tripe and quotes with omissions of key clauses in various parts of the CRS Memos: https://www.thepostemail.com/2011/05/29/bombshell-second-crs-memo-covering-for-obamas-ineligibility-not-released-to-the-public-until-now/
Yes. Obama Sr’s family in Kenya did not accept a white girl as his wife. That’s racist!
“No, it does not take an amendment.”
Well, yes it does. You can’t find a sentence in the Constitution that says it does not take an amendment to change the Constitution. It describes the process.
“Historians and legal experts have long argued that the framers deliberately left the vague interpretation of NBC open for courts to decide and of course that is exactly what has happened.”
vague interpretation??? When the framers would haggle over ever word in it?
No, you pulled that straight out of your ass. Actually, the courts have not ever ruled on NBC.
Trump alluded to a rather definitive article written about it recently.
I was taught in college, by historians deeply schooled in history, in the 70s, what NBC was and now leftists are pretending that it is a mystery what the writers had in mind and people like you drink their KoolAid with gusto.
Kristi Noem.
Born in the USA to TWO parents BOTH born in the USA.
All born in Watertown, Codington Co., SD USA
Probably, BUT we must stand up for what is right!
The TRUTH is that the framers/founders KNEW exactly what “natural born citizen” meant.
It meant to them... Being born IN the USA by TWO citizen parents. And THAT is what they put in the constitution “natural born citizen”.
“ It meant to them... Being born IN the USA by TWO citizen parents. And THAT is what they put in the constitution “natural born citizen”.
In other words Don Jr , Eric Trump or Barron Trump should never even consider running for president.
” the Immigration Act of 1790 directly defines natural born as being born of citizen parents.”
Actually, “The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens...” - Wiki
It used the term “natural born citizen” - which was pretty commonly used - and said those born OUTSIDE THE USA with US citizen parents are considered NBC. It said NOTHING about those born in the USA of non-citizen parents.
In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In July, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
And NBS has a very clear meaning in British Law, one all the Founders were familiar with. A meaning that included almost anyone born within the boundaries of Great Britain. Regardless of the parents. If the parents were there “in amity” with the government, then the children born within the boundaries under the King were NBS.
But they have “ruled”. Multiple cases have been filed regarding this issue in the hopes that certiorari is granted. Those cases are reviewed and if at least four Justices don’t support cert, that is pretty much it.
Justices of all judicial stripes - textualists, originalists, those with more liberal judicial perspectives and the like - between all of them they have not been able to muster four votes to hear a NBC case as noted in this thread.
What this comes down to is people can’t make their case. And they don’t like it.
Make a better case and perhaps cert will be granted. Otherwise it’s just foot stomping.
“It said NOTHING about those born in the USA of non-citizen parents.”
I have read that before.
How is it possible to be so freaking stupid?
Natural born means born of citizen parents. So, if anyone has a question about being born overseas of American citizens, this makes it clear that obviously their offspring would also be natural born American citizens.
You mean you are so stupid to think that the writers would go to all that length to make a separate set-aside for people born overseas, that ONLY people born overseas of citizens are natural born. That is what you are saying.
Again, how can you be so stupid? It is insane.
That is as far as I read of your crap; don’t want to waste my time.
Well, you certainly can refer to cases than have failed to reach the court's attention for a variety of reasons, but the precedent you refer to is no more than, "Don't expect the court to accept your petition if it is procedurally flawed".
Once more, can you point to a case where the court faced the issue, considered the merits of the matter and necessarily interpreted the clause? (Clue: there is none.)
Bear with me for one more moment and consider this language:
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...
If all but the language within the brackets was proposed a reviewer would have said, "Wait a minute by definition there will not be any NB citizens prior to the date this contract is formed - because they would not have had parents who were citizens of this new nation we are about to create!". That would have produced the need to add the language set out in the brackets.
Most importantly, if nothing more than mere citizenship was required, as clearly is the current proposition, then there would be no need at all for the founders to add any reference to "natural born citizen".
If we further recognize the language addresses two types of citizenship, we have to wonder how the NBC form may have been preferred over the plain version. That answer is provided by the well published intention of the founders to avoid foreign entanglements.
Look at the reply in post 112.
“Born in the USA to TWO parents BOTH born in the USA.”
faucetman gets it. All informed people get it. This is what Natural Born Citizen really means as per the intent of the Framers who followed old English Law.
A Natural Born Citizen can only be born to other Natural Born Citizens. Both parents having also been born in the USA.
This being the case - Not even Donald J. Trump is a Natural Born Citizen.
God, I wish you people understood the origins of NBC, the intent of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, the various SCOTUS decisions and the hundreds of challenges that have all failed.
I repeat. Are you a US citizen? Then you are qualified to serve as president. Even Schwarzenegger could serve.
A petition that is procedurally flawed? My FRiend, Upthread I posted a link that shows, for Obama alone, 226 petitions that failed to even be considered. You think they are all procedurally flawed? That thousands of great legal minds over several years of diligent efforts put together petitions that are procedurally flawed?
Get real.
Most importantly, if nothing more than mere citizenship was required, as clearly is the current proposition, then there would be no need at all for the founders to add any reference to "natural born citizen".
There was a specific reason why the founders declined to identify and describe what exactly an NBC is. Do you know why? I do. So do thousands of legal experts and historians. And what we all know is that Obama, Kamala, Ted Cruz, John McCain, Vivek, Cleveland, Nikki and yes even Donald Trump are all eligible to serve as they are (or were) citizens.
Look. There are plenty of reasons to want Nikki to fail. We heard these same lame arguments against Ted Cruz, only so so loudly vocal since he was less hated than Obama or Nikki. But to grandstand on this issue as you people do only shows racism and hypocracy.
Stop it.
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.