Posted on 12/26/2023 5:52:00 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Laura Loomer, a die-hard Trump supporter, is taking a page out of Hillary Clinton’s playbook by going into full birther mode.
'Nikki Haley Is An Anchor Baby Who Is Unqualified To Be US President,” an article posted to her website on Christmas Eve insists. Her piece argues that since her parents were Indian immigrants who didn’t become naturalized U.S. citizens until after her birth, Haley is an “anchor baby” with birthright citizenship and doesn’t qualify as a “natural born citizen."
She shared her article on X/Twitter, and users promptly flagged it with a Community Note.
NEW:@NikkiHaley Is An Anchor Baby Who Is Unqualified To Be US President
MUST READ! 👇🏻 https://t.co/7070uvKLqa— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) December 25, 2023
Loomer was livid when a Community Note flagged the post. "Why do @CommunityNotes censor factual posts?" she asked in a follow-up post on X/Twitter. "Read this article and see for yourself how this is wrongfully community noted. Natural born citizenship isn’t the same as birthright citizenship."
There were plenty of her supporters agreeing with her, as well as those calling her out for being flat-out wrong.
But what are the facts? Here’s what the Legal Information Institute of Cornell University says on the matter:
A natural born citizen refers to someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth, and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life. Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship. One can be a citizen while not being a natural born citizen
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
There is also the Natural Law aspect of the US Constitution.
You can be born a US citizen jus sanguinis (your parents were citizens) or jus soli (you were born within the US).
For Natural Law to apply as it does for US qualifications for President...BOTH must be true.
This prevents any other nation from having a claim, no matter how convoluted, over the citizen seeking to be elected president of the United States.
Ultimately, we are living in a post-Constitutional nation. It died. The horrors of a dying empire are imminent.
Yes. This method makes sense. The just being born here does not. Being born in a barn does not make you a horse.
You do not honestly believe that any US Supreme Ct Justice, in the last 50 years, or in the future, is going to publish an opinion stating black people or women born in the US couldn’t have been president as a support to your argument, do you? They will be laughed off the Court.
you misread and missed my first response to him.
Show me the definition of NBC in the cases. Allegiance to the country is not the same as NBC. Ark was determined to be a natural citizen by virtue of his parents living here. Not a NBC.
I stand by Vattel who was known to the founders and the letter from Jay and washington which I posted a link to.
If a person has a choice of citizenship they are not natural born US because they have a choice. Show me where that is wrong or do you disagree with Wash and Jay who didn’t want a foreigner as commander in chief.
That is my informed decision and that is why I call for a USSC ruling. It is their responsibility to interpret the constiitution
-PJ
The Preamble defines who is a natural-born citizen.PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We the People" are the citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of We the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children.
Whom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children?
How else would the Founders attempt to secure the United States of America if not by limiting the qualifications for the highest office to the People and their Posterity that was the reason for establishing the Constitution in the first place?
That language seems plain enough to me. The whole Constitution must be read within the context of the purpose as stated by the Framers in the Preamble: the Constitution was framed specifically to ensure the country to its people and their children - the natural born of the country.
If you are an alien who becomes a naturalized citizen, you become one of We the People, and then your children that follow become the nation's posterity.
Natural-born citizens are the nation's "posterity" that the Constitution was ordained and established to secure.
If you are an alien who becomes a naturalized citizen, you become one of We the People, and then your children that follow become the nation’s posterity.
Not an issue.
The issue is babies born here which are natural citizens, but their parents are foreigners and therefore they have the right to be citizens of other countries. That means they are not natural born US.
If you read my post, you would know that the above does not meet my definition of a natural born citizen, so I don't understand what you're trying to point out.
I said that if the parents are not We the People, then their posterity are not natural born citizens.
-PJ
got it
Re: 207 - “If you read my post, you would know that the above does not meet my definition of a natural born citizen, so I don’t understand what you’re trying to point out.”
As far as I know, neither Congress or the Judiciary currently subscribe to that view. Suffice to say it’s a point of contention that will probably not get resolved anytime soon, as it may not even be a justiciable question.
I don't see how I suggested any such thing as you assert. But as a separate point, are you admitting the courts are more worried about public opinion than the law or truth?
I certainly do believe that.
The Preamble is considered explanatory text and not the actual contents of the structure of government, but it explains the context that the framework of government was expected to fulfill.
When We the People of the United States delegated certain enumerated powers to the federal government, it was with the intents and purposes that were stated in the Preamble. My definition, to me, is true to those intents and purposes.
That's why I ask, whom else was the Constitution established to secure, if not the citizen People and their citizen children? Does allowing the children of non-citizen foreigners to be natural born citizens "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves" and our own children?
Is that what the Framers believed they were doing? Alexander Hamilton didn't think so, at least not when he wrote Federalist #68 in 1787. Thomas Paine didn't think so, at least not when he wrote "The Rights of Man" in 1791.
And I don't think so, today.
-PJ
Thanks for the additional info.
Her parents were citizens of india, both of them. As a military chaplain, I knew many children born overseas to our troops. They were still their parents’children. The host country could not have demanded them.
I've posted my definition of "natural born citizen" that uses the words of the Constitution many times before:The Preamble defines who is a natural-born citizen.
PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We the People" are the citizens of the United States. "Our Posterity" are the natural born who follow -- the children of We the People. The Constitution was "ordained and established" to "secure... Liberty" to its citizens and their children.
The Preamble was added to be draft of the Constitution by the Committee on Style.
The Preamble exercises absolulely no force as law.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/pre-1-2/ALDE_00001234/
The U.S. Constitution: PreambleThe preamble sets the stage for the Constitution (Archives.gov). It clearly communicates the intentions of the framers and the purpose of the document. The preamble is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers or individual rights.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/pre-1-2/ALDE_00001234/
Pre.2 Historical Background on the Preamble[excerpts]
The initial draft of the Constitution’s Preamble was, however, fairly brief and did not specify the Constitution’s objectives. As released by the Committee of Detail on August 6, 1787, this draft stated: We the People of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity. While this draft was passed unanimously by the delegates, the Preamble underwent significant changes after the draft Constitution was referred to the Committee of Style on September 8, 1787. Perhaps with the understanding that the inclusion of all thirteen of the states in the Preamble was more precatory than realistic, the Committee of Style, led by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, replaced the opening phrase of the Constitution with the now-familiar introduction We, the People of the United States. Moreover, the Preamble, as altered by Morris, listed six broad goals for the Constitution: to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty. The record from the Philadelphia Convention is silent, however, as to why the Committee of Style altered the Preamble, and there is no evidence of any objection to the changes the Committee made to the final version of the Preamble.
[...]
Nonetheless, there is no historical evidence suggesting the Constitution’s Framers conceived of a Preamble with any substantive legal effect, such as granting power to the new government or conferring rights to those subject to the federal government. Instead, the founding generation appeared to view the Constitution’s prefatory text as generally providing the foundation for the text that followed.
The 14th Amendment is a statement of United States citizenship law for all persons born in the United States, without regard to the status of their parents. 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.
All persons naturalized are alien born and made citizens through a legal process at some time subsequent to birth. Only aliens, lawfully in the country, are eligible. Illegal aliens, unlawfully in the country, are not eligible. Freedmen after the civil war were not eligible because they were not aliens.
The Fourteenth Amendment did not change the citizenship law. It restated the law as it was after the Declaration of Independence. Should any prior law be found which one interprets to be inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, such interpretation is struck down by the Fourteenth Amendment. All persons born in the United States, and subject to United States law, are citizens of the United States by virtue of United States law. It does not say all persons with certain types of parents, it says all persons subject to U.S. laws. Those not subject to U.S. laws include officiallly accredited diplomats, or visiting royalty, enjoying what is called diplomatic immunity. Children of illegal aliens, born in the United States, are subject to United States laws.
The United States cannot make Indian (India) citizenship decisions, just as India cannot make United States citizenship decisions.
The very concept that another country could make a decision about the citizenship of a child born in the United States that would be binding on the United States leads to absurd results. The Duchy of Grand Fenwick could pass a law granting natural born citizenship all non-Blacks born in the United States. Only Blacks would be eligible to execute the office of the President. Similarly, Israel could pass a law granting natural born citizenship to all non-Jews born in the United States. Only Jews would be eligible to execute the office of the President. We do not allow foreign nations to determine who is, and who is not, eligible to be President.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/preamble.html
The preamble is not technically a legal document, so the ideas contained within it are not enforceable in a court of law. But, it serves as a reminder of why the Constitution was written — to create laws around justice, defense, liberty, and prosperity for the United States.[...]
the Preamble was not the subject of any extensive debate at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, having been added to the Constitution as an apparent afterthought during the final drafting process.
[...]
In the years following the Constitution's enactment, the Supreme Court of the United States cited the Preamble in several important judicial decisions, but the legal weight of the Preamble was largely disclaimed. As Justice Joseph Story noted in his Commentaries, the Preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments.
The Supreme Court subsequently endorsed Justice Story's view of the Preamble, holding in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that, while the Constitution's introductory paragraph indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded by the Court as the source of any substantive power conferred on the federal government.
I made it clear that it was MY definition using words in the Constitution and I stand by it.
If you want to play word games, what do you make of Article VI when it says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.Is the Preamble a "thing in the Constitution" or is it not? Are the Signatories a "thing in the Constitution" or are they not
Furthermore, when the Preamble says "We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," does that matter?
If the Preamble has no force of law, then on who's authority was the Constitution based? Are you going to tell me that the Signatories have no force of law too?
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.When taking the Preamble and Signatories together, we get the brackets around the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.When the Constitution speaks of the several States and of the People, it is speaking of We the People in the Preamble and the several States that the Signatories represent. Otherwise, we are left with ambiguous definitions of "people" and "states" that you seem to prefer, because the people who wrote the Constitution, signed their names to it, and stated their purpose for it are just extraneous paragraphs to you.Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.
The Constitution has no validity without an attestation of who it represents and who signed off on it. They are all "things in the Constitution." It is one interwoven tapestry; you cannot keep the parts you like and pull apart the things you don't or the whole tapestry falls apart.
It doesn't matter if the Committee on Style added it, the signatories signed it with the Preamble present. They are all "things in the Constitution" and the entire Constitution, Preamble and Signatories, stand as one historic, civilization-changing document.
-PJ
That portion of Article VI merely says that the Constitution, all US laws made in pursuance of it, and treaties made by the United States, are the “supreme law of the land”, and that the judges of every state are bound by it.
“Any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding” simply means that anything in the Constitution or any state law that might give the impression that these (Constitution/US laws/treaties) are NOT the supreme law does not make it so.
Grammatically speaking, Article VI could have also been rendered thus, and the meaning would be unchanged:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, **in spite of** any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary.”
As such, the 14th Amendment, and all US laws made in pursuance of it, are part of “the supreme Law of the Land”...the Preamble of the Constitution (or your opinion of what it means, or what it should imply) notwithstanding.
I made it clear that it was MY definition using words in the Constitution and I stand by it.
You used the Preamble which has no standing as now, you Political moron. YOUR definition has no basis in law.
https://constitution.findlaw.com/preamble.html
The preamble is not technically a legal document, so the ideas contained within it are not enforceable in a court of law. But, it serves as a reminder of why the Constitution was written — to create laws around justice, defense, liberty, and prosperity for the United States.[...]
the Preamble was not the subject of any extensive debate at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, having been added to the Constitution as an apparent afterthought during the final drafting process.
[...]
In the years following the Constitution's enactment, the Supreme Court of the United States cited the Preamble in several important judicial decisions, but the legal weight of the Preamble was largely disclaimed. As Justice Joseph Story noted in his Commentaries, the Preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments.
The Supreme Court subsequently endorsed Justice Story's view of the Preamble, holding in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that, while the Constitution's introductory paragraph indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded by the Court as the source of any substantive power conferred on the federal government.
The Preamble exercises absolulely no force as law.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/pre-1-2/ALDE_00001234/
The U.S. Constitution: PreambleThe preamble sets the stage for the Constitution (Archives.gov). It clearly communicates the intentions of the framers and the purpose of the document. The preamble is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers or individual rights.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/pre-1-2/ALDE_00001234/
Pre.2 Historical Background on the Preamble[excerpts]
The initial draft of the Constitution’s Preamble was, however, fairly brief and did not specify the Constitution’s objectives. As released by the Committee of Detail on August 6, 1787, this draft stated: We the People of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity. While this draft was passed unanimously by the delegates, the Preamble underwent significant changes after the draft Constitution was referred to the Committee of Style on September 8, 1787. Perhaps with the understanding that the inclusion of all thirteen of the states in the Preamble was more precatory than realistic, the Committee of Style, led by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, replaced the opening phrase of the Constitution with the now-familiar introduction We, the People of the United States. Moreover, the Preamble, as altered by Morris, listed six broad goals for the Constitution: to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty. The record from the Philadelphia Convention is silent, however, as to why the Committee of Style altered the Preamble, and there is no evidence of any objection to the changes the Committee made to the final version of the Preamble.
[...]
Nonetheless, there is no historical evidence suggesting the Constitution’s Framers conceived of a Preamble with any substantive legal effect, such as granting power to the new government or conferring rights to those subject to the federal government. Instead, the founding generation appeared to view the Constitution’s prefatory text as generally providing the foundation for the text that followed.
Instead of:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
This has led the Senate to believe that they can remove someone from office and separately vote to disqualify someone from future office.
Does a plain reading of this suggest that it is a dual and conjoined punishment, that is, that someone convicted of impeachment is both removed from office and denied future office; or is it two separate and distinct punishments?
If they are separate and distinct punishments, can the Senate vote to keep someone in office but disqualify them from running for future office? Is there a dependency defined by the conjunction AND that implies order? There is no "normal" reading of such conjunction language that suggests that the order of the actions that are conjoined has any bearing on the meaning of the phrase.
Yet somehow, these punishments have been separated; the Senate can remove someone from office and still remove the "disability" of holding future office. Separate votes have been held to remove someone from office but still let them run for future office.
Similarly, the impeachment clause could have been written like the 14th amendment as:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Senate may by a vote of two-thirds remove such disability: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.This would make it clear that the Senate has a second interdependent power to remove the disability of a bar on future office, but it's not written that way.
We have to interpret it the way it's written, not the way we would like it to be written. Article VI is written the way it is written, too, and says that "any thing in the Constitution" is supreme law of the land.
-PJ
And finally, the ad hominem comes out.
-PJ
We have to interpret it the way it's written, not the way we would like it to be written.
Then why are you ignoring the plain meaning and purpose of "notwithstanding" in the clause? This comes off as pure projection on your part.
The Preamble, despite being a "thing in the Constitution", is not a law.
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.