Posted on 09/08/2024 10:19:42 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(May 5, 2024) — INTRODUCTION
It is frequently argued by opponents of the “two-citizen parents” requirement of Emer de Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) found in Book 1, Ch. 19, § 212 of The Law of Nations (1758), that the requirement “is nonsense.” Indeed, the 2015 article purporting to “resolve” the meaning of the nbC term (“C&K article”) by former high officials in the Department of Justice – Solicitor General Paul Clement and Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal – completely rejects the relevance of the de Vattel nbC definition by ignoring any discussion of de Vattel or the definition in his 1758 treatise altogether. Ignoring facts, however, does nothing to eradicate them.
Instead, the C&K article deploys ipse dixit (“it is so because I say it is so”) to merely declare that “someone born to a [i.e., singular] U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States…,” adding, cryptically, that “a ‘natural born Citizen’ means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.” (Emphasis added)
Stated otherwise, the C&K article announces, ex cathedra, that as long as “a” parent – in the singular – is a U.S. citizen, that alone will suffice to render the child born abroad to that parent a “citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings [thereafter].” The C&K article then somersaults to the non-sequitur conclusion that therefore, purportedly, “a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth.” (Emphasis added)
(Excerpt) Read more at calameo.com ...
Too late. Am watching a commercial right now that is pimpin’ the Kamarella Harris Historic Victory Coin! Yee Haw. Get ‘em now before they are all gone! They’re going for a lot more than two bits though. If Clintoon had been smart, she would have sold her fireworks show piece by piece.
Him and the Cheney’s. They need to hook up and go to Disneyland.
The term-of-art words “natural-born Citizen” are not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment nor Federal Statute 8 U.S. Code § 1401.
This makes for an interesting theoretical discussion. Nothing wrong with that. But as a practical matter, the ship has sailed. It’s out of the harbor and is far away. The issue was settled by the voters in 2008. No court would dare touch it now.
Yes, she is ineligible (and she or her staff erased, removed the facts of her parentage and thus her ineligibility from her website some time ago)
This abrogation of constitutional law has been a concern ever since Pelousy faked up the “eligibility certification” papers enabling Obama’s disasterous presidency .... not to mention his stolen SS number and imagineered “birth certificate” (not that it would have mattered constitutionally had it been genuine)
Why doesn’t Cackler get prosecuted for receiving compensation for “services” rendered?
Good point.
This issue is discussed frequently here on Free Republic.
Some Freepers say the courts need to address this with a definitive ruling.
I suspect that if the courts ever did issue a ruling, the ruling would say that Barack and Kamala were eligible. And the key issue would be, that they didn’t have to go through the naturalization process. They were American citizens by birth, regardless of the immigration status of parents.
And regarding Obama, can you imagine the legal ramifications of nullifying the entire Obama administration after the fact? Agreed, no courts is going to rule that way.
>>”The issue was settled by the voters in 2008. No court would dare touch it now.”
They NEED to touch it, although I agree with you that as a practical matter it’s a non-issue this election. But the issue needs to be addressed at some point, whether that be through a Constitutional Amendment clarifying the issue or by a Supreme Court case. Allowing children of foreign born non-citizens to be President is not what the framers intended and it’s not something we should accept. And I would go further to suggest that judges (at least judges on the federal level) and Members of Congress should have the same restriction imposed upon them. That obviously would require legislative or Constitutional changes. But such changes should be made IMO.
If “Natural Born Citizen” was a term that could be defined (or re-defined) through statute, the framers would have said so.
I agree with everything you said. To really get it right, it would take a Constitutional amendment. Obama and Harris would be grandfathered in. So that wouldn’t be an issue.
The issue would be that an amendment requires approval by 3/4 of the states. Given that a good portion of the states are run not just by Democrats, but by Democrat lunatics, that 3/4 is a high hurdle.
Maybe cut and paste something from the U.S. Constitution saying a person with her background is not a natural born citizen?
Great. If Trump has a sure shot winning strategy that is this. Tell the audience my opponent is not NBC, but I am, so vote for me.
The issue needs to be brought before not just the SCOTUS but the Congress.
That it would invalidate an entire administration or disqualify a leading candidate is irrelevant. They convict people on ludicrous technicalities and imprison them, we can be technical about who gets to control the nuclear stockpile.
There are plenty of rocks to throw at the Katyal-Clements BS, which is simply self serving because Katyal is Indian and wanted to open the door for someone like...Kamala Harris!
The fact that she is considered a citizen rests on ONE SCOTUS decision from 1898 and it’s been controversial ever since.
The limitation in the Constitution is there specifically to keep someone like Barry Soetoro and Kamala Harris out of the office. Loyalty to the nation - a group of people - and the Constitution is the obvious criteria: we don’t want to be ruled by foreigners, just because they assert “I yam an Amer-eeican”.
Harris has like 4 blood relatives in this country and not one family member who ever served in the US military in any capacity, nor any family history of the settlement and maintenance of the country. With well over 200-250 million people who DO have that background, why do we need her? Why change the rules for one overly ambitious nobody from somewhere else?
the following article
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1646&context=jcl
makes the case that the US term natural born citizen was considered analogous to the English term natural born subject.
The Vattel original term was indigene (which imho does not seem to help) and was translated into English twice. The 1760 translation is citizen, and the (much later) 1797 translation is natural born citizen.
Until SCOTUS issues an on-point (i.e., in a case having to do with POTUS eligibility requirements) majority decision and opinion that declares THE definition of the Constitutional term natural Born Citizen, the question will remain unanswered and the issue unresolved.
The contents of the noted volume by de Vattel dating to 1758 remains highly relevant in terms of the necessary original meaning analysis (as in, what did the term mean circa 1787).
Founding Fathers were not JV British Subjects!! Lol
They knew all about the citzenship-subjectship false analogy.
"The term-of-art words “natural-born Citizen” are not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment nor Federal Statute 8 U.S. Code § 1401."
Supreme Court Justice John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, had explained, in what appears to be an official clarification, that Law of Nations, international law when Constitution was ratified is as much the law of the United States as the Constitution is, at least when the Constitution was ratified.
Excerpted from the writings of Chief Justice John Jay:
"That you may percieve more clearly the Extent and objects of your Inquiries, it may be proper to observe that the Laws of the united States admit of being classed under three Heads or3 Descriptions—1st. all Treaties made under the authority of the united States.—John Jay’s Charge to the Grand Jury, the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, 22 May 17932dly. The Laws of nations [emphasis added]—
3dly. The Constitution, and Statutes of the united States—"
Since I understand that both of Harris's parents were still immigrants when she was born, based on Jay's clarification of the importance of Law of Nations in US law, she is not a natural born citizen of the US, therefore not constitutionally qualified to be either POTUS or VP based on the intentions of the drafters of the Constitution imo.
Also, since Congress and renegade states have repeatedly proven that they are an enemy of the people imo, it is now up to Democratic and Republican Trump supporters to effectively "impeach and remove" ALL (exceptions?) state and federal lawmakers and executives in November.
In fact, it's up to us Trump supporters to take the first MAJOR step in draining the swamp by supporting Trump 47 with a new, Constitution-respecting Congress, new state lawmakers too, not only so that he will not be a lame duck president from the first day of his second term, but will support him to quickly finish draining the swamp.
Finally, let's not allow the anti-Trump media try to fade our memories of what we witnessed on July 13.
Down the Memory Hole: Google Hides Autocomplete Suggestions Related to Trump Assassination Attempt (7.28.24)
Waste of time people.
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.