Posted on 08/04/2023 11:32:59 AM PDT by bitt
There is more than one thread. I am on both of them. One of them is just barely over 200 replies.
This one.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?q=1&;page=151
Obama was/is a Kenyan citizen with a stolen Social Security Number
Ask the Kenyan marxist if it matters.
In fact. Ask the democrats if the constitution matters about anything.
Take this tired, worn out, tedious bull shit and stick it in your ear. Numerous courts have held that you are blowing hot air out your fundament so just shut up.
That's strange, my copy of the 14th Amendment says "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." not "All former slaves...."
Legislative intent can only be used to construe an ambiguous provision. "All persons" is pretty damned unambiguous.
We really have our eyes on the prize here…
Most of us know that nothing we say here is likely to have any significant impact on energy, immigration, crime or economics. Many of us are aware that our discussions are often just Academic, and some people just want to discuss different things.
But if you have any ideas how we can do something about energy policy, immigration, crime or economics, i'm all ears.
That is not a definition. Just a statement of requirement.
You’re being a twat, not all ears.
There is not one legal citation in this article by the JD who incidentally was suspended from practicing law in Tennessee.
Vivek was born in the United States and therefore is a natural born citizen. See 2 United States Supreme Court decisions:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) and Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)
James Madison wrote a letter to George Washington, shortly after the end of the Constitutional Convention (Oct 18, 1787). The letter was in defense of the work of the Constitutional Convention against criticisms by George Mason. One such criticism was that the “the common law was not secured” by the proposed Constitution. Madison’s response to that charge:
"The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions [of the several States] equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The Constitution of Virga. [Virginia] drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I. to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and Obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code. The “revisal of the laws” by a Committee of wch. Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution."
Except that they are based in facts and evidence while those other things are not.
John Jay in a letter to George Washington.
——Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.-——
Why would the founders want someone who could be the citizen of another country by virtue of their parents or just the fathers foreigner status to be in charge of the armed forces? Coming out of the revolution hard to say someone who could be British could be president. Obama’s father was British citizen and he could have claimed British citizenship instead of US. I believe dual citizenship or the ability to claim it is contrary to the meaning of “natural born”
When I am on the USSC that’s how I will rule.
If we can work UFO’s into the discussion this thread can easily top 400! :^)
Dead Horse.
> As to Natural Born Citizenship and eligibility to be President of the USA? As far as I as know, the issue has NEVER been litigated. <
A little-known requirement is residency in the United States for at least 14 years. Well, in 1928 Herbert Hoover ran for president. Hoover had resided in the US for 14 years, but not the LAST 14. (He was overseas doing relief work.)
Was Hoover eligible? There was some debate about this. The courts kept silent, and let the voters decide. The voters said “yes”, and Hoover was elected.
The same will always happen with this natural born thing.
Nor is Cruz, Nikki Haley (sp?), 0bola, or Kamela Harris.
Or any of Trump’s children other than Tiffany, as their mothers were not citizens at the time of their births.
Like Mario Bellei. (Rogers vs Bellei)
Pray tell, how does an American citizen lose his citizenship by doing nothing?
If you were not automatically a citizen at the time of your birth then you can only become a naturalized citizen.
Many of our citizens are naturalized at birth, just as Mario Bellei was.
Under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: “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.”
Yes. One big naturalization statute. Last week I was reading through the debates on the 14th amendment. They flat out say it is a naturalization. Congress *ONLY* has the power of naturalization. They can't speak creatures into existence. Only God can do that.
They can pass a law that turns a person who is *NOT* a citizen, into a citizen, and they can declare that this is done "at birth".
This does not make someone a "natural citizen", it makes them a "naturalized at birth" citizen.
Ramaswamy was born in the United States to parents who were legal aliens and, therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That makes him a natural born citizen.
The 14th amendment does not use the term "natural born citizen." Had they tried to put that in there while everyone knew their intent was to naturalize former slaves, they would have probably provoked a riot.
They are not "natural born citizens", they are naturalized born citizens."
And Wong Kim Ark also doesn't say "Natural born citizen."
It just says "citizen."
“There are many who have been taught to believe that simply being born in the United States makes one a natural-born citizen.”
Even assuming that his parents were not naturalized until after he was born, that is still an issue here. The rest of the article is a lot of wind. I suspect the Supreme Court would rule that he is a natural born citizen, irrespective of when the parents were naturalized, assuming they were here legally. If the parents had been naturalized first, or at least one of them, then it’s a virtual certainty. I suspect the court would say the real issue is whether he was a citizen from birth or was naturalized later. So it really doesn’t depend on where he was born at all or who his parents were. It simply depends on whether it was his birth that made him a citizen. I think there is an exception to that for people born in countries that were later annexed by the US, who are treated as natural born citizens anyway.
He clearly did not go thru the naturalization process so if the writer is correct then he’s not a citizen at all, much less a natural born one. I doubt the court would say that.
But since this continues to be an issue, it would be good for the Supreme Court to rule.
And which of them were at the constitutional convention, and therefore know what they are talking about?
As far as I as know, the issue has NEVER been litigated.
I think there was a case filed against Woodrow Wilson's opponent, Charles Evan Hughes.
I think it was dropped because Charles Evan Hughes lost the election, rendering it moot.
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.