Posted on 07/27/2023 1:23:56 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Trevor Sutcliffe @TrevorSutcliffe
Vivek Ramaswamy is not legally eligible to be President. The natural born citizen clause predates the Fourteenth Amendment by several decades. He is a Fourteenth Amendment/Wong Kim Ark citizen, not a natural-born citizen. His campaign for the Presidency is illegitimate.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Obama’s dad never was a US citizen. You have blown your case mr not a lawyer.
What are you smoking? You NBC fan-bois are totally ignorant of the Constitution, The 14th Amendment, numerous Supreme Court decisions and dozens of lower court decisions.
And the funny thing is? When pressed about the severity of an NBC you state the parents must also be NBC’s.
So that leaves Trump where? That’s right. Using your delusional standard - Trump himself is not eligible.
I wish once and for all you people would STFU and STFD.
Then neither was Obama.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Then neither was heels up
Dug this old post out of the mothballs:
Here’s some information to shed light on what you stated from another thread where these issues were discussed:
If the Framers did not intend for the phrase they put into the Constitution - Natural Born Citizen - to mean what it meant at the time they wrote it, they would have written out a definition into the Constitution to redefine it. Since they did not, we can only assume it meant what the phrase meant when they wrote it out - the English common law definition - those born within the borders of the realm are naturally born citizens.
There are a number of court cases where it is defined in this manner with regard to those born with far looser connections to the United States than Marco Rubio, Chester Arthur, (or Kamala Harris). The first case where it seems this was dealt with by a court was Lynch vs. Clarke in New York over a dispute with who could inherit property - there was a law on the books stating that only a “U.S. Citizen” could inherit property, and the presiding judge (apparently in this court the judge was called a “Vice Chancellor”) made this declaration: “Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.” In another case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over the citizenship of a person born who was born to Chinese parents (it was illegal at that time for Chinese immigrants to become U.S. Citizens) it was declared that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, and Justice Field, who wrote the opinion, actually referenced the Lynch v. Clarke decision in the ruling of the Court: “After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.” This case was In re Look Tin Sing. Another U.S. Supreme Court case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 dealing with the same issue of a child born to Chinese parents made the same ruling and also declared him to be a natural born citizen in the ruling by virtue of his right to citizenship by birth. All of those cases were in the 1800s.
There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1939 with the title Perkins v. Elg http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/325.html which dealt with the issue of a woman who was born in the U.S. to Swedish citizens who returned to Sweden with her when she was four years old. Her father was naturalized prior to this as a U.S. Citizen and held dual citizenship. She then came back to the U.S. and was admitted entry as a citizen at the age of 21. For whatever reason, her father later did away with his U.S. Citizenship status and the equivalent of the INS at the time declared she was to be deported. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this, finding she was a natural born U.S. Citizen by right of birth and even declared she was eligible to be President of the United States in the ruling. A past President, Chester Arthur, was born with an Irish father who was not yet naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, though his mother was born in Vermont where Arthur himself was born.
Detractors like to ignore all of information and court cases and instead rely totally on a case Minor v. Happersett - seeming to deliberately misquote the ruling - indeed, the justices specifically stated they were not making a finding of every scenario that constitutes a natural born citizen in their ruling: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ***For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.***” Minor v. Happersett - full text of ruling https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
Wow , we see almost 200 replies on this threat dealing with natural born citizenship.
This is a Hot Topic.
It’s interesting to see people here present their evidence, as to why certain people are , or are not , natural born citizens.
No GOP candidate will get that passover of the law.
___________________________________
McCain got it. Cruz almost got it.
true enough... where ever an amendment to the constitution was presented that overrides the constitution, it in fact, does override the constitution.
Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Yes there is.
The 14th Amendment is a mere change to “an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, not a change to the original meaning of the Constitutional term “natural born Citizen”. Being elevated (by virtue of the manner in which it was enacted) above the status of a mere statute to the status of a Constitutional provision does not change the fact that it is a mere change to the the Rule of Naturalization.
This was never brought up with Mike “I’m white” Dukakis, whose entire campaign was about being the “son of Greek immigrants.” As soon as the candidate is not lily white, you guys get all worked up.
____________________________________________
Eggs zactly. And when the candidates are lily white like Trump, McCain and Cruz? The NBC crowd ignores it.
We don't know who Obama's father because he has never provided a legitimate birth certificate. His mother was a U.S. citizen.
If you read the article, NEITHER of Vivek Ramaswamy's parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t have the words “natural born Citizen” in it that’s in Article 2 Section 1, the presidential clause. Why do you think it does. It only contains the word “Citizen”.
The parents need not be NBCs, but mere Cs.
embassy births are US territories.
just as are all us territories... islands, governorships, military bases, embassy offices, clinics, treatment centers etc.
if your parents are staff at embassy or other us territory or jurisdiction and they are us citizens and YOU are born to them while they are NOT in the continental usa, but are on a base, embassy territory or property... YOU ARE AN ELLIGIBLE citizen.
People carry their little pocket constitution around with them and think that makes them a constitutional scholar.
There is one thing that has never been adjudicated - whether someone is natural born if they were born here, but their parents were not legally within the country.
Why do you think it does. It only contains the word “Citizen”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why do you think the 14th omits Natural Born? I’ll tell you why. Because it identifies the failure of the Framers to adequately define and explain what a NBC is.
They screwed up and left a vague unclear definition. Even the 14th did a piss poor job leaving only the word “citizen’.
But that’s enough for all future Supreme Court and lower court decisions from then on to recognize that any citizen (born here or naturalized here) is eligible.
How hard is that to understand?
The parents need not be NBCs, but mere Cs.
_______________________________________
Correct. But your average NBC moron constantly points out that Cruz’s, Kamala’s, Nikki,s Vivek’s, Obama’s etc. parents were not born in America and so that is a disqualifier.
They wanna believe that? Fine. That also leaves out the child of one Mary Trump who was born in Scotland.
So what’s my point?
NBC fan-bois are inconsistent. They are not fooling anyone.
Bingo!
He was born in Cincinnati. He’s more eligible than Canadian Ted Cruz and the Kenyan Obama combined.
Wow. The Republican establishment and DeSantis are really worried about Ramaswamy if they have to claim he’s ineligible to run.
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.