Posted on 07/22/2024 9:33:51 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Jul. 22, 2024) — Trump will have the legal standing in federal courts to do so if she is nominated for that office by the DNC. And Trump should do so to force SCOTUS to take up the issue of the “natural born Citizen” term as it applies to whom can constitutionally serve as the President and Commander in Chief (and VP per the 12th Amendment) and resolve it. The courts evaded the issue using “lack of standing by the plaintiffs” for Obama and then also for Harris for VP. They should not do that again. Former Chief Justice Marshall‘s words from the past tell them they should not evade the issue.
To Kamala Harris: Fool the voting electorate once, shame on you. Fool the voting electorate twice, shame on us. She owes allegiance since birth to the English monarch – formerly Queen Elizabeth and now King Charles! Click on the image below for more details.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Longer than that.
And even longer than that.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0036
It's at least 235 years old, and even still older than that, I think.
Jefferson's change in the Declaration of Independence would seemingly make it an issue since 1776.
"Citizen" is not "Subject", and does not at all follow the rules of "Subject."
That was an erroneous assumption made by some from the very beginning.
In Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1938, the Court of Appeals noted as part of the basis for their decision that...
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, 1898 [found that] [W]hen the Constitution was adopted the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States.
It appears the Supreme Court in Elg (1939) agrees with Ark (1898).
(Both Marie Elizabeth Elg and Wong Kim Ark were born on U.S. soil to parents who were here legally but not U.S. citizens.)
Again, the Constitution is properly applied as written and ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD and intended. What matters is what the ratifiers of the Constitution considered an NBC was. The Supreme Court decisions based on the good-faith and sound finding of original understanding of NBC in the Constitution is, therefore, legal precedent concerning NBC.
Some argue that the term "NBC" is not specifically used in Ark or Elg, but these cases revolve around citizenship based on birth on U.S. soil, which is exactly what NBC is. An NBC is a citizen automatically because he was born on U.S. soil. He is “naturally” and automatically a citizen needing no further processing to become a U.S. citizen. He becomes a citizen under “natural” (birth) circumstances, exactly as Elg, Ark.
The key here is being born on U.S. soil to parents who were in the U.S. legally which excludes "anchor babies" whose parents are not in the U.S. legally.
By any interpretation, Harris is a Citizen by birth only and not NBC, therefore ineligible to serve as VPOTUS or POTUS...Period.
By the interpretation of the government, the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branch, Kamala is and has been a natural born citizen since birth.
She is and has been the Vice President, a position which pursuant to Amendment 12 requires her to meet all the requirements of the President.
Amendment 14 was proposed by the Legislature and the record of the Congressional Globe leaves no doubt that the intent was to cover all persons who were born in the United States and subject to United States law, leaving out only the children of accredited diplomats or visiting dignitaries who are given immunity from our laws. And the one that really matters is the Judiciary.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 662-63 (1898)
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."
Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 658-59:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established. In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying: "Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide." 6 U. S. 2 Cranch 64, 6 U. S. 119.
In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said: "It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."
Prior to independence, all persons born in the Colonies were natural born British subjects. After independence, children born in the States were natural born American citizens. The change from subject to citizen reflected the change of sovereignty from a king to the people.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898)
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that"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,"
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
There is no third source of citizenship. There are naturalized citizens and there are natural born citizens. Natural born citizens are those who become citizens at birth.
"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means simply subject to the laws of the United States.
The Court's interpretation is the only one that counts. You are entitled to your eccentric opinion of what the law should be, but the court is empowered to tell us all what the law actually is.
President Barack Obama, Vice President Kamala Harris, Nimrata Haley, Marco Rubio, Charles Evans Hughes, Bobby Jindal, and Vivek Ramaswamy — all natural born citizens, as was Vice-President and President Chester Arthur, born of a foreign father in 1829.
This is STUPID and a losing idea..besides being wrong. Other than a few conspiracy theorists on the fringes including here, no one cares.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
100%. The only reason to do this is to lose.
All this Birther stuff is pure horse crap. I can not believe that they have been pushing it for 16 some odd years!
Yep, 16 years going back to John McCain.
When your enemy is shooting themselves in the foot (running a stupid and unlikable candidate), don’t disturb them.
You know what I find so interesting about the Birther mindset, is how they not only “pretend away” the Wong Kim Ark decision, they also “pretend away” what Vattel himself said! From my BFF’s website:
Some countries do follow Vattel’s line of thinking, but what the Vattel Birthers will seldom tell you, is that even Vattel, himself, recognized some countries do things differently. Like that Big Island sitting across the English Channel from France:
Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
Do Birthers sit around and chant to themselves? Do they go get hypnotized into ignoring that? What do they have to do to themselves to become that oblivious to Reality???
I think they are just Sovereign Citizens Lite, and have something insane in the membrane.
If that is what it is, then why did they need the 14th amendment?
Weren't all the slaves born on US Soil? Indians too?
If that is the rule, why didn't it apply to slaves and Indians? Why did there have to be made special laws to make it apply to these two groups?
Barry Goldwater.
Mitt Romney's father, George Romney.
Charles Evan Hughes.
William Loughton Smith.
Over 200years.
Hell, Calvin's case (1608) was a "birther" dispute, and likely only decided the way it was because of enormous pressure from the King on the Judges. Even then it wasn't unanimous.
What I find so interesting about people on your side is their tendency to lie through straw men.
Nobody is "pretending away" Wong Kim Ark. We are simply noting that it does not say "natural born." It says "citizen", and nothing but "citizen", and it's argument is that Wong Kim Ark derives his citizenship through the 14th amendment.
So Wong Kim Ark is not in conflict with "Natural born citizen" because Wong Kim Ark was not a case about "Natural Born Citizen."
So tell me, do you think the Plessy court, which declared Blacks "Separate but Equal", would agree that a Chinese man, who was banned by statute law from having American citizenship, would be legally able to become President?
Do you think the racist court would have gone that far?
All they had to do was add "natural born" to their decision, but they oddly refrained from doing so.
Now all you clever lawyers come along and equate "natural born citizen" with the Wong court's plain old "citizen", and then declare the rest of us to be disrespecting the court!
Bait and switch. You are trying to pull a bait and switch.
Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
Yeah, we broke away from that, rejected their "Subject" and adopted Vattel's "Citizen."
"Citizen" and "Subject" do not even come from the same moral foundation.
A subject is *OWNED* by the King, just as any Lord would own an animal born on his land.
"Citizens" have natural law rights as expressed by many writers of natural law, from John Locke to Burlamaqui.
One of the first things the new nation of the USA did after they won their independence was to toss out every British law which was incompatible with the natural law principles upon which this nation was founded.
"Subject" was the first thing they tossed on the ash heap.
Before the poorly-written 14th amendment, black slaves were considered “property” not “persons”. Not really on point with the NBC issue.
Away from birtherdom, they rage against International Law.
The Fugitive Slave clause:
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
and the famous,
... determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
For the census, they were counted as whole persons. For representation in Congress, three-fifths of their census total was counted.
The peculiar institution recognized a peculiar property right to the labor of an enslaved person, and holding that person in bondage.
Further still, statutory construction tells us a general clause (i.e. 14A §1 Citizens at birth clause) can not govern a specific clause (i.e. No Person except a natural-born citizen — Art. II, §1, Cl. 5).
The Constitution is not a statute law.
Until Congress specifically states via its constitutional authority that “all citizens at birth are natural born citizens” the court MUST give each clause a separate legal effect.
The Supreme Court is empowered to interpret what the Constitution says, and the Congress is bound by that interpretation.
The Legislative Branch has no authority to tell the Judicial Branch how to interpret the Constitution. When Congress passes a law repugnant to the interpretation given by the Judicial Branch, the courts strike down the Legislative act as unconstitutional.
How many people here remember...THE PETER PRINCIPLE.
No one talks about it lately, BUT YOU CANNOT FIND OR FANTASIZE about a more perfect example.
I agree.
As far as I know, no one (Congress or citizen(s)) have challenged Kamala's eligibility - or if it's been challenged, no court has taken the case to my knowledge. If, as so many have asserted, she's ineligible, why hasn't the question been raised in court? Why hasn't the SCOTUS addressed the issue?
There's an old legal idiom that says, "Silence constitutes consent." The SCOTUS silence on this question is deafening.
The SCOTUS already dealt with this issue in the late 1800s. While it was “dicta” rather than a binding ruling, no one has dented it since it was published:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, ‘Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,’—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king....
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said: ‘By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.’...
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established...”
Kerchner relies on Vattel, but what he didn’t know at the time (and refuses to admit now) is that Vattel did not use NBC when writing in the French. And it wasn’t until 10 years AFTER the US Constitution was approved that a bad translation of Vattel inserted NBC where it didn’t belong.
Kerchner used the bad translation without realizing Vattel never wrote what was in that translation! This is what Vattel wrote:
“Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
Translations at the time the Constitution was written translated it “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
1st property, then person.
“Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
My Translation and Analysis of a Key Sentence in Emer de Vattel’s 1758 Treatise on Natural Law in Section 212 -“Des citoyens et naturels”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2023/04/15/my-translation-of-a-key-sentence-in-emer-de-vattels-1758-treatise-on-natural-law-in-section-212-des-citoyens-et-naturels/
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.