Posted on 07/13/2019 9:52:40 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
Senator Kamala Devi Harris (D-California) cannot become president unless she is a “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Constitution contains few eligibility criteria for our nation’s highest post. But being born to the country is one of them. Since a vice president must be able to succeed to the presidency, Harris could not run as vice president, either.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requires that only a natural born citizen can serve as president. The Constitution clearly distinguishes between a citizen and a “natural born Citizen.” There is a special case of citizen who is also natural born. An interesting but often-ignored requirement is that one must also have “been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The intent indicates an attempt to ensure allegiance to the United States by a strong connection. This was the result of continued loyalties to the British Crown among Tories and others after the Revolutionary War, where some politicians even suggesting the nation should return to a limited monarchy. The Framers thus wanted to eliminate “family influences” among our presidents.
Some may think of the Fourteenth Amendment. Even if we ignore the requirement that a person born in the country must be “under the jurisdiction thereof,” the Constitution clearly recognizes that not all citizens are eligible to be president.
Both of Harris’s parents were present in the United States under student visas when Harris was born in Oakland, California. They were not U.S. citizens at that time. A student visa requires a non-immigrant intent. That is, one must swear that they have no intent to stay. Harris’ parents appear to have lied. …. continue reading at: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/klayman/190712
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
By your reasoning, loyalty is a matter of ancestry, not free will.
“The right case must ask the right question.”
If that case is as you posit, and the consensus on the issue so universal, then it would seem a relatively straightforward proposition to address via the Fifth Amendment amendatory process.
But this discussion serves to substantiate the reality of the corruption that has been done with regard to the maintenence of constitutional integrity. This surrender to expediency served to impose upon us Dred Scott, Plessy vs Fergueson, Roe vs, Wade, Lawrence vs. Texas, Obergefell vs Hodges, Robert’s abject groveling on Obama Care, and a host of other constitutionally suspect rulings.
I think that an honest consideration of all this inconstancy promotes greater urgency to reversing this impetus, not less.
Our great constitution deserves no less.
Here are 19 state and federal eligibility challenges that ruled explicitly on Obama’s Article II, Section 1 natural born citizenship and in each ruling found him to qualify as a natural born citizen.
1. Allen v. Obama et al, No. C20121317 (Ariz. Pima County Super. Ct. Mar. 7, 2012) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2012 ballot; finding that Obama is a ”natural born citizen” under Wong Kim Ark; and expressly rejecting argument that Minor v. Happersett holds otherwise), appeal filed (Ariz. App. Ct. 2d Div. Mar. 8, 2012);
2. Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010);
3. Fair v. Obama, No. 06C12060692 (Md. Carroll Cty. Cir. Ct., Aug. 27, 2012 (relying on Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark to hold that Obama is a “natural born citizen” eligible to serve as President);
4. Farrar v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE- 1215136-60-MALlHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, Farrar et al v. Obama et al., No. 2012CV211398 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), recons. denied (Mar. 14, 2012), appeal denied, No. S12D1180 (Ga. Apr. 11, 2012);
5. Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (overruling objection to Obama’s placement on 2012 primary ballot; finding that Obama’s long form birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012); Freeman v. Obama, No. 12 SOEB GE 112 (Ill. Bd. Elections, Sept. 17, 2012) (recommending rejection of objection filed seeking to keep Obama off general election ballot in 2012 on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”; relying on prior decision (12 SOEB GP 103) which held that Obama’s long form birth certificate sufficiently established birth in the United States);
6. Galasso v Obama, No. STE 04588-12 (N.J. Adm. Apr. 10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama’s 2012 nominating position and finding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark), decision adopted as final (N.J. Sec’y of State Apr. 12, 2012);
7. Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (recommending rejection of objection to Obama’s placement on 2012 primary ballot; finding that Obama’s long form birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “Natural Born Citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. Bd. of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012);
Jackson v. Obama, No. 12 SOEB GE 113 (Ill. Bd. Elections, Sept. 17, 2012) (overruling objection filed seeking to keep Obama off general election ballot in 2012 on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”; relying on prior decision (12 SOEB GP 104) which held that Obama’s long form birth certificate sufficiently established birth in the United States);
8. Kesler v. Obama, No. 2012-162 (Ind. Election Comm’n Feb. 24, 2012) (denying objection seeking to keep Obama off 2012 ballot on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”);
9. Jordan v. Secretary of State Sam Reed, No. 12-2-01763-5, 2012 WL 4739216 (Wash. Super. Ct. Aug. 27, 2012) (dismissing as frivolous plaintiff’s complaint seeking to prevent state from including Obama on 2012 ballot, noting that many similar claims had been filed and, in some cases, such as Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (2009), courts addressed the merits of the claims; concluding: “just as all the so-called evidence offered by plaintiff has been in the blogosphere for years, in one form or another, so too has all the law rejecting plaintiff’s allegations. I can conceive of no reason why this lawsuit was brought, except to join the chorus of noise in that blogosphere. The case is dismissed.”);
10. Judd et al v. Obama et al, No. 8:12-cv-01507-DOC-AN (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012) (dismissing lawsuit purportedly removed by plaintiffs from state court case to federal court);
Judd et al v. Obama et al, No. 8:12-cv- 01888-DOC-AN (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) (dismissing lawsuit stating election fraud, RICO, and various other claims seeking to prevent Obama from being on 2012 general election ballot (among other things);
11. Martin v. Obama, No. 12 SOEB GE 111 (Ill. Bd. Elections, Sept. 17, 2012) (overruling objection filed seeking to keep Obama off general election ballot in 2012 on grounds that he is not a “natural born citizen”; relying on prior decision in Freeman and Jackson primary challenges (12 SOEB GP 103 and 12 SOEB GP 104), which held that Obama’s long form birth certificate sufficiently established birth in the United States);
12. Paige v. Obama, No. 611-8-12 WNCV (Vt. Superior Ct., Sept. 21, 2012) (denying motion for temporary restraining order to prevent placement of Obama on the 2012 general election ballot and holding that “[t]he common law of England, the American colonies, and later the United States, all support one interpretation only: “that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”), citing Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010);
13. Powell v. Obama, No. OSAH- SECSTATE-CE-1216823-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211528 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1077 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012);
14. Purpura v Obama, No. STE 04588- 12, 2012 WL 1369003 (N.J. Adm. Apr. 10, 2012) (initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama’s 2012 nominating position and finding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark), decision adopted as final (N.J. Sec’y of State Apr. 12, 2012) aff’d, No. A-004478-11-T03, 2012 WL 1949041 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 31, 2012) (per curiam), cert. denied, No. 071052 (N.J. Sept. 7, 2012;
15. Strunk v. N.Y. Bd. of Elections et al, 35 Misc. 3d 1208(A), 2012 WL 1205117, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 50614 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 11, 2012) (N.Y. King County Supr. Ct. Apr. 11, 2012) (dismissing complaint challenging, among other things, President Obama’s eligibility to his office; expressly rejecting the claim that Obama is ineligible on the basis of his father’s citizenship as frivolous, and issuing a show cause order as to why sanctions should not be imposed upon plaintiff);
16. Swensson v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216218-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1076 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012);
17. Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036 (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “[i]t is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”), aff’d, No. 12-1124 (4th Cir. Jun 5, 2012) (per curiam);
18. Voeltz v. Obama, No. 37 2012 CA 000467, 2012 WL 2524874 (Fla. 2nd Cir., Jun. 29, 2012) (dismissing complaint challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on 2012 ballot; finding that persons born in US are NBCs per Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny, regardless of parentage and rejecting arguments to the contrary); Voeltz v. Obama, No. 37 2012 CA 002063 (Fla. 2nd Cir. Sept. 6, 2012) (dismissing complaint seeking declaration that Obama is not eligible for presidency because he was not born in US and was not born to two US citizen parents; finding that persons born in US are “natural born citizens” per Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny, regardless of parentage and rejecting arguments to the contrary; reserving for later ruling motion for sanctions);
19. Welden v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215137-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen), decision adopted by Ga. Sec’y of State (Feb. 7, 2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1059 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012).
Your link doesn't clearly state this, but I am betting that at some point American Samoans were given the choice between full citizenship rights as an incorporated territory or tribal sovereignty rights similar to Native Americans as an unincorporated territory. The chose the latter. And with no treaty rights similar to Native American tribes, they don't get both.
Your link doesn't clearly state it, but I am betting that at some point American Samoans were given the choice between full citizenship rights as an incorporated territory or tribal sovereignty rights similar to Native Americans as an unincorporated territory. The chose the latter. And with no treaty rights similar to Native American tribes, they don't get both.
Thanks for that.
It could use a little formatting but it’s pretty compelling.
Sadly, this isn’t a reason-based argument so facts are of little meaning to a lot of the participants.
no they decided not to incorporate. They had tried 2-3 times to get it changed but have lost the cases.
Or alternatively, you can stop tilting at windmills, and join the fight to defeat the Democrat Presidential candidate whatever that candidate’s parents’ immigration status was when they were born and reelect Trump, thereby saving the Republic from the certain doom that will occur otherwise.
You misunderstood me. I was taught there were two types of citizens: naturalized and natural born, stop end of story. Anyone who did not have to go through a naturalition process is a natural born citizen. This is what I was taught at both the high school and college level in the 80s and 90s. I had never heard any nonsense about three types of citizens; natural born citizen, citizen, and naturalized citizen, until the birther movement started.
The argument I was making in my previous post is that if there is a natural born citizen and a citizen status then this should be recorded on birth certificates. It’s not because it doesn’t exist.
They, meaning the American Samoans? Or congress? What is the reasoning for the decision not to incorporate?
Those are the only two identified by the Constitution. If you are not one then you have to be the other.
I didn’t know Klayman was that much of a nutjob.
I don’t know various sources say they were the only us territory to not do so
I had not seen this list before. It is very useful. I believe that Obama was eligible in spite of his fraudulent birth certificate. He was trying to conceal another crime, not his birth status. Born in Hawaii to a U.S. Citizen mother. End of story.
Citing Wo Kim Ark and, especially, Minor v. Happersett doomed most of these cases. Those are poor choices upon which to hang your hat.
So you are saying that someone born in the US who had one parent that is not a US citizen is a naturalized citizen not a natural born citizen? I don’t think any court has made such a ruling and all rulings to date on this issue use the 14th amendments “all persons born or naturalized, in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the states where they reside.”
Two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Though the writers of the 14th amendment did not put natural born citizen all legal commentary I have read on it is that it has been determined that they meant NBC.
The “jurisdiction thereof” covers diplomats and embassy personnel. They are not subject to the laws of this country so when they have a child in the US it is not given an American birth certificate.
Again if people born here of parent(s) that are not citizens are not natural born citizens shouldn’t there be a place on the birth certificate to signify that difference?
It would have been great if either House of Congress had subpoenaed Obama’s original, vault copy, long form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. Under the laws of that state an original birth certificate can be released to “A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the (birth) record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;” An investigative committee of Congress would have qualified for such a court order. But Congress was not interested.
Nor was the Judiciary, politicians et al, the media, or the public. It's dead, Jim.
The point made above that I was sort of responding to was that sure, do both, but it could be at cross-purposes. If the average swing voter sees it as just trying to find ways to exclude someone from an opportunity based on a different background, or if it just takes energy that could be better spent elsewhere, well, then it might not be a good idea to spend too much time titling at those particular windmills.
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.