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 ...
"Pointless" is in the eye of the beholder. I have long ago realized that it is important for the public to know that the legal system doesn't deal in truth, it deals in power.
And it is often incompetent.
Barack Obama was eligible to be President ...
So we have been told by people who don't really know.
...arguing over their eligibility is pointless given all the real issues that exist that people actually care about
People who do not care about the issue do not have to argue about it.
Clearly some people *DO* care about the issue.
I assume you are referring to the Wong Kim Ark decision? They didn't declare him a "natural born citizen." They conspicuously left out that verbiage.
They declared him a "citizen" and cited the 14th amendment, which is itself a naturalization act.
Natural born citizens have no need of the 14th amendment.
Similarly, children born to American mothers outside the country were always considered natural born citizens.
No, they were "considered as". If you look at the early acts granting citizenship to people born outside the country, you will notice they never say "is" a "natural born citizen." They say things like "deemed", or "considered as". They never use language that declares them to be a "natural citizen" with certainty.
That was published in 1817. It was a widely used lawbook in the state of Pennsylvania, and it's second addition was published in 1847.
It was based on the work of the Pennsylvania Supreme court, the members of which all had connections to either creating the US Constitution or ratifying it, in determining what English laws would no longer apply in Pennsylvania.
They undertook the task of weighing the English common laws and statutes as a result of the Pennsylvania legislature ordering them to clarify the issue of what parts of the common law would still remain in effect in Pennsylvania.
The point here is that people who actually knew what they were talking about were the source for this information.
The past is a foreign country. The ideas they held then are not modern ideas, and many of them modern people will disagree with.
What they thought was common for their era, but you miss the point. Many of the people of that time period understood that English Law did not make "citizens", it made "subjects."
Alexander Smythe was not the only source from that era that regards Vattel as the source of "citizen."
People who claim UObama was born in Kenya or somewhere outside of the USA also don’t know for sure they are correct.
You’re right, people do care about where Obama was born, the percentage of voters who care about the issue are miniscule, compared to those who view people who claim Obama was born outside USA are nuts is overwhelming.
It’s issues like this that make the entire MAGA and America First movement look like a bunch of whack jobs.
How do you know he was born there?
There no evidence his mother ever left Hawaii.
She absolutely did leave Hawaii, and there *IS* evidence that she did. You may not be aware of it, but others of us are.
That is all thats required. He was not born in Canada or any other country.
And how do you know? We have no good proof of where he was born. His "birth certificate" is clearly a fabricated fake.
He was born in early August why do you think he was in Canada, or out of the country?
I've gone over this elsewhere in the thread.
Firstly, her Aunt Eleanor lived in Blaine Washington, which is right on the border with White Rock Canada, which I believe is a suburb of Vancouver.
Barack Obama Sr wrote in a letter that he and Stanley Ann were giving him up for adoption, and there was a well known home for unwed mothers in Vancouver.
In the 1960s, Miscegenation was actually a crime in a lot of states, and we know that both Stanley Ann's parents were from Kansas, which had serious race problems. It was not uncommon for girls with embarrassing pregnancies to be sent to live with a relative, and Aunt Eleanor was Stanley Dunham's sister.
We know Stanley Ann was in Seattle in late August because of her enrollment in college and because of the testimony of one of her friends who saw her in Seattle in late August of 1961. Her friend said Stanley Ann arrived at her house with baby Barack, and did not know how to change a diaper. This doesn't sound like someone who flew out from Hawaii, immediately after her baby was born, it sounds like someone who had him nearby and other people had been taking care of him up to that point.
And to be fair, I *don't* know for certain where he was born, but there is a good circumstantial case to believe he was born in Vancouver Canada.
The ones i've talked to are absolutely certain they are correct. You can't tell them otherwise. Even if you point out the problems in their theory, they just ignore them.
You’re right, people do care about where Obama was born, the percentage of voters who care about the issue are miniscule, compared to those who view people who claim Obama was born outside USA are nuts is overwhelming.
You may be aware of this, but if not, this will be useful information for you.
Back in the 1970s, this college professor did experiments to see what sort of influence the majority of people would have on an individual. He set up a classroom full of people who were accomplices to do tests on individuals. He would call in the actual subject and have them seated with the rest of the class, and then he would ask everyone to look at something and tell him what they saw.
The majority were instructed to lie about what they saw and say they saw something that clearly wasn't true. When the question got around to the actual test subject, 80% of the test subjects would agree that they saw the same thing the majority claimed to see. Only 20% would speak the truth against the majority who were lying.
These experiments are known as the "Asch conformity experiments, and they gave us insight into human nature.
*MOST* people will agree with whatever they think the majority believes, and the media works very hard to create the illusion that the majority believes what the Liberal Democrats want them to believe. This system is self reinforcing, and the more people persuaded to believe something, the more other people are also persuaded to believe it.
Eventually it becomes "common knowledge" and anyone disagreeing is a "nut."
And that's what we have on this topic.
It’s issues like this that make the entire MAGA and America First movement look like a bunch of whack jobs.
The media-liar system works pretty good, doesn't it?
I keep telling people that the media-liars ability to manipulate public opinion is the most serious threat this nation faces today.
They skew elections unnaturally. Indeed, media-lying is the primary method of rigging elections in this country.
People are absolutely certain that Obama was born in Kenya and they’re people who are absolutely certain of the opposite and dwarf in number of those who believe Obama is a Kenyan.
Personally, I believe the MAGA movement is the key to moving forward, in order to do that it can’t be 100% centered on Trump because 2024 regardless of the outcome will the end for Trump, either he wins, loses or goes to jail, who knows, but in the end, he will be over politically.
The MAGA movement has to be centered on those issues people really care about, the culture, the economy, etc., making it about rigged elections, who was or was not born in the USA, etc., are issues that discredit the movement, IMO.
For example, Parental rights in terms of what gets taught to the children is absolutely a winner of an issue, instead we are taking about the eligibility of Obama and Vivek Ramaswamy, it’s a waste of time on issues no one really cares about and takes away the discussion on issues people do care about.
Of course something published in 1817 would rely on the naturalization act of 1804. It would not, however, consider the 14th amendment.
The 14th clarified prior treatment of the citizenship issue. As such, it is now the law of the land.
It also rubs me the wrong way to be told that I have to submit to majority opinion when I have information that shows that majority opinion to be incorrect. (natural born citizen.)
You are right about these issues being useless to advance the cause, because the brainwashing has been successful, but I don't see the harm in continuing to discuss stolen elections and fake "natural born citizens."
What we discuss here on Free Republic I perceive will have little impact on the larger electorate.
I see no harm in discussing these ideas, even though politically they are pointless.
It is a "naturalization act".
Yes, a "naturalization act" is the law of the land, but it in no way intrudes into the area of "natural citizen."
The 14th amendment does not determine Presidential Eligibility, else it would have had a clause in it stating that is it's intent.
You cannot modify the Constitution by accident.
The wording of the act itself:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
You are making the point that all babies born in Seattle, Minneapolis, Buffalo and Detroit can’t be president because their parents may have slipped across the border to use the Canadian hospitals. I guess this could be true of San Diego, El Paso, Tucson and San Antonio as well.
I am no Obama fan. I think he is a fake. I think he himself lied about his birth. But I can’t put him or his mother out of the country at his birth. Near the border is not out of the country.
I continue to make the point in order to address the egregious wrongs that have occurred you have actually win elections and all the focus should be on the issues that people actually care about.
It is harmless to discuss those issues on FR, the problem is major Republicans are campaigning on issues like stolen elections Trump and Kari Lake are two examples and every other Republican candidate is forced to address the issue , it’s deliberate on the media’s part
It’s also extremely irresponsible to destroy other key Republicans like what’s happened in Arizona and Georgia, MAGA supporters rightly claim Republicans can’t win without their support but it’s also correct that MAGA can’t win a national election and many statewide elections without unity within the Republican Party
I reject your definition. "Naturalization" is any law or process created by congress to make citizens out of people who would not otherwise be citizens.
There are born citizens and naturalized citizens.
There are "naturalized at birth" citizens, such as those created by acts of congress which naturalize people at birth.
This phenomena is specifically mentioned in Wong Kim Ark.
" A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by n abling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."
A born citizen doesn't then have to become a naturalized citizen.
When Congress sets the naturalization to occur "at birth", these people are born naturalized citizens.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
Designating all the persons "born" in the United States identifies who is being naturalized by the act. "Or Naturalized" is already covered by acts of congress naturalizing them.
Congress cannot create natural citizens. Their only power is to naturalize people.
I’ll need to see some decision by the SCOTUS saying they are not eligible, that they are not natural born citizens before I buy into it. The 14th amendment naturalized everybody born on the territory.
No I am not. You are saying that in an attempt to dodge the circumstantial evidence I have mentioned so far. Blaine is *RIGHT ON THE BORDER*. Literally, you can walk across the Canadian border into White Rock Canada. Now get this. There was *NO HOSPITAL* in Blaine. The only Hospital was in White Rock. There had long been an agreement that the White Rock hospital would service residents of Blaine.
So *IF* Stanley Ann was in Blaine, staying with her Aunt Eleanor for an embarrassing unwanted pregnancy, then she would have *HAD* to go to Canada, or drive a great distance further in the US to reach a Hospital.
I think he himself lied about his birth. But I can’t put him or his mother out of the country at his birth. Near the border is not out of the country.
I will let you consider further the additional information I have provided.
Your example of the Ark cite specifically describes people born OUTSIDE of the United States.
Nothing else can be discussed on a conservative discussion forum? We should *only* talk about issues that might help us win elections?
It is harmless to discuss those issues on FR, the problem is major Republicans are campaigning on issues like stolen elections Trump and Kari Lake are two examples and every other Republican candidate is forced to address the issue , it’s deliberate on the media’s part
I absolutely believe Kari Lake's election was stolen by corrupt election officials and the theft was enabled by corrupt judges and other officials.
We had one woman testify to the Arizona Senate that most of the important state officials are in the pocket of the Sinola drug cartel. I find that accusation believable, because it makes more sense than what they tell us happened.
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.