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 ...
Who is the "They" you are referring to, the boogieman under your bed?
McCain was never POTUS eligible.
He was a naturalized citizen—a citizen by statute.
The U.S. is not constrained by Natural Law or the Law of Nations but instead had and has always had its options about how to handle the question of whether and under what conditions the foreign born children of U.S. citizens are to be recognized as U.S. citizens.
By contrast, Congress since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution (which contains the uniquely exclusionary term natural born citizen) has never had any such discretion as to whether a child born here of a mother and a father, both U.S. citizens at the time, shall be recognized as a U.S. citizen. The U.S. Constitution, and the presence therein (and the original meaning) of the term in question, forces Congress’ hand, and denies it any such discretion. This is a good thing!
I see you’re triggered. Most excellent!
These debates shall go on and on until FR is no more, since neither side is going to be convinced by the other.
Goldwater was ineligible.
We could have sold or traded to another sovereign his or any others of the various U.S. territories before any related grant or recognition of U.S. statehood.
Would the “territorial” (i.e., non-NBC) citizens not need to follow an orderly process of Naturalization, spelled out by the U.S. Congress, before being able legitimately to claim full-fledged (except without the ability to run for or hold the offices of POTUS or VPOTUS) U.S. citizenship, in the event they find that the U.S. had traded or sold their territory out from beneath them?
What evidence is there that the Founders used Vattel’s definition rather than, say, Blackstone’s?
Isn’t that what a campaign is for?
And two people, born in Dearborn, MI, could conceive and birth a child, then immediately take the family to Iran to go to train for jihad. That child, born of two US citizens in the US, could come back to the US 35 years later and run for president.
How is that a different scenario?
Having “NBC” parents is not the issue.
Having mere “C” parents at the moment of one’s birth (in addition to being born in the U.S.) has always been the requirement.
People should stop yammering on about parents being required to be the “NB” variety of “C”. It’s just not necessary.
A natural-born citizen refers to someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth, and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution explicitly states that "no Person except a natural born Citizen […] shall be eligible to the Office of President," among other age and residency requirements.
How does the Constitution define “natural born citizen??”
I tink Som Ting Wong with his tinking.
And for those claiming that Trump was/is ineligible, that is NOT true at all! Mary Trump became a NATURALIZED CITIZEN of this nation in 1942, years prior to Donald's birth. Both of his parents were American citizens and he was born here.
I do too, but this doesn't stop the courts from being wrong.
You are entitled to disagree, but I think you will lose in court, if a court ever hears the case.
Of course you will lose. Modern courts are filled with ninnies and ignorant people who think they know what they are talking about because some Judge a 100 years ago told them what to think.
The answer would be the same if the parents are both citizens.
“If they were an infant, and their parents wanted to leave the United States with them, could the United States government prevent their parents from taking them?” How would the US stop them from taking their baby overseas if the parents are citizens?
“If the infant’s parents were deported, would the United States government prevent them from taking their child with them under a claim of the infant being a U.S. citizen? “ Again, what law would stop them if they were US citizens?
“If they were an infant and their parents died, would the United States government prevent their grandparents from returning them to their mother country?” Would the US government stop natural born citizens John and Jane from having their British mom come take the baby if they died?
“Here’s a situation to consider. A person was definitely born in the United States. He has proof positive. But his mother slept around a lot. She has no clue who the father is. He could have been an American citizen. He could have been a Greek sailor or a visiting Swedish diplomat. Is this person eligible for the presidency? I’d say yes.”
A semi-foundling.
An interesting “special case”.
If no father is available to claim such a domestically-born child at the time of birth, or to appear on the Certificate of Birth, and the child were to decide at least 35 years later to run for the U.S. presidency, let him or her make the NBC argument. The Supreme Court could probably justify finding in such a candidate’s favor.
Well that's not quite correct. I spent much of the day perusing the debates on the 14th amendment, and they flat out say the 14th amendment is a naturalization process.
You can be born a citizen, but only because congress created a naturalization statute that takes effect when you are born.
You aren't a natural citizen, you are a congress made "naturalized" citizen.
I don't think these people are dumb, they are just misled. The legal system has been misleading people for a very long time and it is no fault of their own that they believe what "authorities" have told them.
“If a statute has to make one a Citizen, that’s not a “natural born Citizen”.”
Exactly.
Natural born citizen - nothing has to be done for that person to claim the rights of citizenship. It happens when one is born on US soil. A person born on US soil is able to vote and run for office without having to be naturalized. It doesn’t matter who the parents are or where they’re from.
Is he a citizen now?
Very interesting questions.
It would seem axiomatic that the U.S. Government can’t deport a natural born citizen of the U.S.
OTOH, the U.S. government is not categorically prevented from doing a two step against a treasonous naturalized U.S. citizen: First stripping them of their U.S. citizenship (e.g., under a theory of fraud) and then unceremoniously shipping them back to the country of which they were originally a citizen.
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.