Posted on 07/27/2023 1:23:56 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
He is just making stuff up.
It’s a Constitutional matter. It has to be brought up. It’s nothing silly about it. Vivek is a dual citizen owing allegiances to India and the US. That’s a no no in the founders original intent.
Congress declared that Obama and McCain were NBCs. They thereby cut out the clause in the USSC. No one objected, not the Republicans, not the courts. It doesn’t mean anything any more. When there is a refusal by one and all to object to the annulment of a clause in the USSC then that clause becomes meaningless words. The cancellation of the First Amendment, at least, has been arrested for the time being.
Which is precisely why the court does need to discern the Founders meaning and make a ruling accordingly.
My money's on born on US soil, AND of US citizen parentS.
Vivek is not a dual citizen. He does not have Indian citizenship.
Circumstantial. From memory, her aunt Eleanor (Stanley Dunham's sister) lived in Blaine Washington, which is right across the border from Vancouver. It was not uncommon for people to send girls with embarrassing pregnancies to go live with relatives.
Barack Obama Sr had written a letter declaring that it was the intention of he and Stanley Ann to give the baby up for adoption.
Records indicate that Stanley Ann Dunham was in Seattle on August 19th, which is too soon to fly after an August 5th birth. Airlines wouldn't allow such young infants on flights in that era.
Hawaii also allows people to obtain birth certificates even if they are not actually born in Hawaii, so long as Hawaii is the parent's residence.
There are a few other bits and pieces, but it makes a good circumstantial case that Obama was born in Canada.
Who really knows, Obama, Kamala, Ted Cruz, Nicky Haley?
USSC cannot take it up unless it is fought through the lower courts to USSC and so far no one has cared to do that. Everyone is afraid of being labeled a RACIST because the item was ignored explicitly in favor of Hussein O. And Because O was elected and served two terms I can’t think that the Court would not uphold the excising of the Natural Born clause. Of course they wouldn’t word the decision that way. They would probably just refuse to grant it certiorari. And if they took it they would deem it to mean what ever the pols say it means.
You should be explaining why your perversely directed interpretation of U.S. Constitutional and citizenship law does not constitute a suicide pact.
Yes, I used to think the same.
After Roe v Wade, not so sure
So people say, but they hit a snag when you ask them to prove it.
Today I spent quite a lot of time going through the debates on the 14th amendment. (February and March of 1866.)
They use the term "naturalization" all through it. The congressmen themselves call it "naturalization."
It is an act of congress, not a natural allegiance, and it was primarily created for the purpose making former slaves, (but not Indians) into "citizens." And it doesn't say "natural born citizens."
If you look at my tagline, that comes from John Bingham, (Chief proponent of the 14th in the House of Represenatives) and he said the amendment would only apply to children born "of parents owning allegiance to no other sovereignty."
And this is pretty much true.
Yes he does. His parents weren’t naturalized Citizens at his birth.
Do you also believe that men can become women because "the law" says so?
Here’s hoping you make mad $$$ on that bet. 😁🥬💸💍💎💱💲💲💲
Correct!
Were they naturalized before he was born?
As soon as the candidate is not lily white, you guys get all worked up.
You must be selectively reading. They were all over John McCain (born in the canal zone) and Mitt Romney. (His father was born in Mexico, I think.)
There were some that even brought up old Barry Goldwater. (Arizona territory.)
So like I say, you must be selectively reading because i've seen all of that.
Well, yes there is, but it's all wrong. The best evidence demonstrates they are wrong.
But nobody cares. They look at court cases over 100 years after "natural born citizen" was put into the constitution and think that answers what it means.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No, two problems with that. One, the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution, and not a mere naturalization law. And two, it was intended to give freed slaves citizenship and resolve that question. That was all the intent of the amendment. It did not structure and create a situation where there is a whole new class of citizens. In it’s very text it even differentiates between naturalized citizens and citizens by birth. That phrase would not have been needed if they intended the amendment to make all the slaves, regardless of their US birth, to all be naturalized. They knew how to write clearly. They could have easily simply declared that all freed slaves were now naturalized citizens. They didn’t.
And no court has ever agreed with that novel theory about the 14th amendment. And nothing in the Constitution says anything further than NBC or Naturalized. If you aren’t one, you are the other. If there was some third level of born here, but not eligible for President, they would have said so.
I’m afraid no court, anywhere, agrees with the debate position you referenced. This debate really does devolve into the gold fringe on the flag kind of “King of the Hill” Dale thinking.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No, two problems with that. One, the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution, and not a mere naturalization law. And two, it was intended to give freed slaves citizenship and resolve that question. That was all the intent of the amendment. It did not structure and create a situation where there is a whole new class of citizens. In it’s very text it even differentiates between naturalized citizens and citizens by birth. That phrase would not have been needed if they intended the amendment to make all the slaves, regardless of their US birth, to all be naturalized. They knew how to write clearly. They could have easily simply declared that all freed slaves were now naturalized citizens. They didn’t.
And no court has ever agreed with that novel theory about the 14th amendment. And nothing in the Constitution says anything further than NBC or Naturalized. If you aren’t one, you are the other. If there was some third level of born here, but not eligible for President, they would have said so.
I’m afraid no court, anywhere, agrees with the debate position you referenced. This debate really does devolve into the gold fringe on the flag kind of “King of the Hill” Dale thinking.
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.