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 ...
At least Obama’s mom was US citizen.
You are correct. The founders wanted ALL Presidents after a certain date to have citizen parents and born on our land. All this is based on English common law which they used. The reason is that if your parents who raised you were citizens you should have an allegiance only to the US. Unless I missed it in the last 10 years tho,this has never been adjudicated. Obama was the test…we failed it because Republicans are chicken noses. It may be too late now. I don’t know. The Founders were brilliant. Our law makers are not.
Unless he was an Indian.
That is what the phrase meant at the time it was written, and has been adjudicated multiple times.
What did they decide about the Indians?
Did they suddenly become citizens at some point?
Was it retroactive back to 1868?
I just want you to understand just how d@mned silly is the argument that the 14th makes people into "natural citizens."
Which means that arguing this issue is barking at the moon.
> How many times have you seen candidates offering such evidence? Even if asked? <
You are correct. Presidential candidates should present evidence that they are eligible for the office. Just as a prospective teacher must present evidence that he is eligible to teach the subject that he is applying for.
No evidence? Then no job.
But for some odd reason this standard is not enforced when it comes to the highest office in the land.
Well , according to a couple of websites I went to ,it indicates that India does not allow its citizens to have dual citizenship.
So if Vivek is an American citizen, he cannot have Indian citizenship at the same time.
So perhaps now it’s time for the debate about whether you can believe everything you find online. Go for it if you like.
Very interesting—had never seen or read that. Gives Vattel props vis-a-vis chaotic, Natural Law-mangling British subjectship law.
Nobody knew it at the time and it was only discovered years after his death. In fact, I think it was just discovered around 2008 when this topic was being discussed.
Arthur did everything he could to cover it up.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents.
So the courts mention "other authorities" which are the ones you guys like. I can tell you the name of one of them. It was William Rawle. He did more to spread the notion that American citizenship followed British Common law than any other person.
But who are the "authorities" that said it required the parents to be citizens?
Are you curious?
A person born in the United States is a citizen. However, in the meaning of the Natural Born clause as it was intended by the Framers, that required parents who were citizens. Kamala is overtly an “anchor baby.”
“The Constitutional requirements are purposely minimal.”
False.
Deliberately maximal. Just ask John Jay.
Songbird...ouch!!!
Bingo, that.
You too must be selectively reading. I've seen more threads than I care to mention about McCain not being a natural born citizen. Here is one right here. Same thing with Cruz. I have long argued that Cruz is not a natural born citizen, and based precisely on what is written in the Supreme Court Decision Wong Kim Ark.
I have also seen Trump brought up in these sorts of discussions.
The fact that Obama‘s mom is a US citizen, and he was based on the commonly accepted birth certificate, born in Hawaii, he is, therefore, a US citizen, and no one would challenge his natural born status regardless of his father. I think the key to this was that he was a Democrat. Now, if we get a republican, take Cruz, for example, born in Canada, not even in the US. Even he said he was not eligible before he decided to run after all. Take are several Indian anchor babies, born in the US yes, but their parents were not citizens. They are not natural born citizens. I think this will be challenged by Democrats when a Republican comes up. And I will sure hate to see Republicans defend these Indian anchor babies as natural born citizens.
“A person born in the United States is a citizen.”
Without more, not for long.
The Bad Orange Man has declared his intention to open up a 40 oz. can of woop-ass on this decades-long mess.
Everyone at the time knew what it meant. It never occurred to them that people would forget what it meant. The clue to what it means is in the word "citizen."
They screwed up and left a vague unclear definition.
That's one theory. Here is another, and I think I can prove it to any reasonable man.
People like William Rawle deliberately misled the country about what it meant. He purposely wrote the wrong explanation in his law book "A View of the Constitution" and this erroneous explanation became dominant because the book spread so wide and far.
Even the 14th did a piss poor job leaving only the word “citizen’.
If they had tried to make the former slaves "natural born citizens", they would have not only been called "liars", they would probably have had a riot on their hands.
They naturalized them as "citizens", because that is as far as they dared go, and yes, they used the word "naturalization" to describe what they were doing in the debates on the 14th amendment.
Macho’s correct.
“If his parents were legally within the United States at the time of his birth, he is.”
“Legally” is not the same as “Citizen”. Being in the US on a student/work/visitor vias does not make foreign nationals citizens of the United States. He is a citizen at birth..as is Harris, Haley, Jindal and the rest of the goobers. But he is not NBC.
I can prove it because Obama was elected President. Twice.
Vivek isn’t winning anything…and if Trump asked him to be VP, you guys would be scrambling to fall over yourselves talking about how wonderful he is.
good tag line
:)
At the end of the day, standing will be determined by voters. Speaking for myself, I will not vote for a ticket that includes a anchor baby. I will only vote for a candidate or ticket that is based on a candidate born in the US of US citizen parents. If enough of us do that and don’t sell out our principles, then we will have more standing on the issue than the courts.
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.