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 ...
The name of the hospital is correct, and how do we know that really is Obama’s social security number?
Ugh.
What about the parents???
You do realize, do you not?, that almost no other countries in the world other than the U.S. recognize as citizens domestically born individuals regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
How do you know that?
His mother was a citizen so he was.
His mother being a citizen has nothing to do with it. If he was born in a foreign country, (like Canada), he wouldn't get citizenship because *SHE* didn't meet the qualifications necessary (naturalization act of 1952) to give it to him.
If he was born in Hawaii, he would get 14th amendment citizenship.
In either case, he wouldn't be a natural citizen. He would be one created by an act of congress, which is "naturalization."
And there is no evidence that his mother left Hawaii when she was pregnant.
There is evidence she was in Seattle around August 19th of 1961. How would she get to Washington state if she didn't leave while she was pregnant? They wouldn't let infants fly in those days. Other freepers posted copies of the airline rules from that time period, and you could not fly with an infant.
There is also a letter written by Barack Obama Sr saying they were going to give up the child for adoption.
There is lots of evidence that she was there in school the whole year.
My recollection is there are absolutely no records of her whereabouts from March of 1961 to August of `1961. If you have some evidence that disproves this, I would very much like to see it.
So far as the legal system is concerned, but not actually true as evidence can prove.
Barack Obama proved that
He proved that the courts do not give a crap about the issue, and will just regurgitate what they were taught.
That is the best guess from the available evidence.
Well that is incorrect. The Wong Kim Ark court held that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen. They didn't say anything about him being a "natural born" citizen. They conspicuously left that part off.
There are reams of laws and court cases supporting this.
And also supporting abortion, Homosexual marriage, the belief that men can become women, and all sorts of other stupid and ridiculous crap.
Modern courts are full of morons and liars.
You’re post is spot on.
And the child would be taken with the parents to whatever country they were deported to.
And the child could come back after the age of 35 and run for president, because he was a citizen who did not require any acts to claim his rights of citizenship (unless, I guess, the US denaturalized him, too).
No.
Simplistic...as in, too simple, and thus unworkable!
Stop with the stupid birtherism crap, just a bunch of trumptard losers that never shut up, u suck
‘In either case, he wouldn’t be a natural citizen. He would be one created by an act of congress, which is “naturalization.”’
What process did he have to go through before he could vote for the first time?
Yes, the U.S., if it wants to be seen by its citizens and by others as a self-respecting sovereign country, should denaturalize such children too.
Out with the whole lot of them.
Good thinking—this would seem to be one of the few examples one can posit in which one born in this country to two U.S. citizens can potentially justifiably be stripped of U.S. citizenship (i.e., one or both parents determined to have acquired U.S. citizenship fraudulently or for purposes of committing treason).
I have spent much of the day perusing the debates on the 14th amendment. They flat out say it's "naturalization" in those debates. And it is.
Congress only has the power of "naturalization." It cannot make natural what is not already natural. It can only naturalize.
That supersedes the common law interpretation in the Original Constitution.
And here is another error. The "common law" is not the source of citizenship. "Common law" deals with subjects. You won't find the word "citizen" anywhere in the common law.
The word "citizen" does not actually come from England. It is a Swiss word. (Look it up on Etymology online.)
Why would we be using a Swiss word instead of the common law English word "Subject"?
So now, if you were born a Citizen under the 14th Amendment you are a Natural Born Citizen for all intents and purposes.
Well this is certainly true, but only because the modern courts are so hive mind locked that they won't bother to consider any other possibility.
It's one of the deficiencies in our hide bound "precedent" based legal system.
Get over it. You won’t win this argument in any court in the nation.
Which means something legally, but means nothing factually.
BTW: In addition to the age and NBC requirements, there’s also the Constitution’s extended stateside residency requirement for both POTUS and VPOTUS.
“You do realize, do you not?, that almost no other countries in the world other than the U.S. recognize as citizens domestically born individuals regardless of the citizenship of the parents.”
And that matters how in this discussion? We’re talking about the US, not other countries.
“Yes, the U.S., if it wants to be seen by its citizens and by others as a self-respecting sovereign country, should denaturalize such children too.”
That isn’t the point. The child, a US citizen or - through no fault of his own - denaturalized, would go with his deported parents.
The arguments in the original post aren’t helpful for determining citizenship.
OMG, please change your name to Nacho Man, because your legal acumen is about that of a container of Taco Bell Cheese Nachos.
The 14th Amendment is the embodiment of the law on natural born citizenship. Read Wong Kim Ark.
“BTW: In addition to the age and NBC requirements, there’s also the Constitution’s extended stateside residency requirement for both POTUS and VPOTUS.”
Then the worry about Brunhilde birthing a baby on a stopover on her way home to Dusseldorf makes even less sense.
A Chinese spy who comes to the US, births a baby, takes that baby home and indoctrinates him to come back to the US to become president, would not be eligible regardless of all this arguing about natural born v naturalized.
Good question! Their notes.
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.