Posted on 01/24/2024 11:00:59 AM PST by CDR Kerchner
(Jan. 23, 2024) — The blowback continues on the Substack article posted by one Paul Ingrassia positing that Nikki Haley is constitutionally ineligible because she is likely not a natural born Citizen (“nbC”) as required by Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution. Guess what: Ingrassia is more than likely absolutely correct.
He contends that, in order to be an nbC, one needs to be born on U.S. soil to two parents who at that time are already U.S. citizens. This, of course, is the definition articulated by Swiss attorney, jurist and scholar Emer de Vattel in § 212, Book 1, Ch. 19 of his 1758 treatise, The Law of Nations, hereafter, for brevity “§ 212.”
And for remaining doubters, the historical record is clear that the Founders were in possession of that treatise, both in French and English, when they were drafting the Constitution in 1787, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court here, here and here.
An earlier Ingrassia article prompted President Trump to post on his TruthSocial platform a concurrence, discussed at The P&E by the intrepid Editor here and by your humble servant here. As expected, Mr. Trump’s post triggered the usual suspect blather of “birtherism,” “xenophobia,” “misogyny,” “racist dog whistle” and, of course, the omnibus general “Orange Man Bad” pejoratives. Childish and uninformed, but not altogether unexpected.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Remember this: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2023/11/22/nikki-haley-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-usa-to-constitutional-standards-not-eligible-to-be-president-missing-2-legs-re-nbc-status/
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) Author: Natural Born Citizen
Oh Lordy here we go again.
Wake me when the Supreme Court reverses itself.
Obungo proved that TPTB don’t give a damn about who is or isn’t eligible, as long as it suits their needs.
Keep pushing them. They'll tell you that Supreme Court decisions are not "law".
You seem to be of the opinion that recycling the same old arguments in a slightly different format is enough to lend credibility to said arguments.
They don’t.
Argue for a Constitutional amendment defining the requirements of what it means to be a “natural-born citizen”; that would be a more effective use of your time than retreading old ground that has already been deemed worthless for the goal you have in mind.
This past thread, covering roughly the same material, has enough court citations going back two centuries to indicate that Joseph DeMaio and Paul Ingrassia are wasting their time: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4208995/posts
I had no idea there were people who took this position of the Constitution’s reqmt about a president needing to be a natural born citizen could be interpreted as anything other than born on US soil within US jurisdiction.
Meaning, a natural born citizen is someone who was a US citizen at moment of birth — which anyone born on US soil within US jurisdiction is.
No idea where this manufactured condition came from about nationality of parents. Parents who are citizens of another country and who have NOT submitted diplomatic credentials to US authorities are within the jurisdiction of the US. (Diplomatic credentials disables that jurisdiction.)
Therefore, a child born on US soil to parents who are not diplomats is a US citizen at birth and that is the only requirement for natural born citizen. Meaning, a citizen not declared citizen via naturalization.
Note that the first at least 16 presidents of the US had parents who were not US citizens.
The specifics are interesting. Japan held control of some Aleutian Islands during World War II for a period of time. Babies born during that time, in that locale, were on US soil, but not within US jurisdiction. They were thus not US citizens at birth and later had to be naturalized.
The King of Thailand’s father was born while his parents were students at Harvard. He was born in Boston. And, interestingly, though royalty they had not submitted diplomatic credentials. They were within the jurisdiction of the US. Thus, that particular newborn eventual King of Thailand was a natural born US citizen and this was aggressively covered up as his reign progressed.
Nice thorough response.
However you are only waving a red flag at the bull. Expect a spate of redoubled efforts to explain how wrong you are.
USSC decisions aren’t law? So everyone for the last couple of hundred years is mistaken in following USSC decisions?
Lol. That would be news to millions of sane people.
The left was hoping to get Haley to face Biden so they could hit Haley with it when the time was right. Obama? Doesn’t matter. They don’t remember back that far.
"[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen"
THEY COULD HAVE EASILY been students at Harvard-—
Harvard does NOT require their students to be citizens of the the USA.
The offspring might be a “naturalized citizen”-—BUT NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
IIRC-—the particular decision you are referring to said the person in question was a “NATURALIZED citizen”
NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
2 different things.
OBAMA was NEVER ELIGIBLE.
HIS “DADDY” was citizen of Kenya/Britain.
OBAMA SR was NEVER a US citizen
Worse than that, Barack Hussein Obama II’s father was not even an immigrant to this country. That was a first such scenario in the history of this nation. And look what it lead to, the ruination of our Constitutional Republic and Rule of Law by letting a person born with foreign influence innate in them who writes a book about the foreign influence on him title “Dreams From My Father”. Obama was exactly the type of person that they did not want in the future to be allowed to be President and Commander in Chief and thus why they put the “natural born Citizen” term into the presidential eligibility clause to be applied to future president once the founding generation was gone. See this White Paper for more on the WHY or click on my ID name for more information on the nbC term: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf
And of course CNN could care less as to what they are doing to this country. They are part and parcel of it. We are witnessing the full massive implementation of the far-left Marxist “Cloward-Piven Strategy” on our border with its primary and secondary and tertiary effect as it ripples through our economy and rule of law.
“..one needs to be born on U.S. soil to two parents who at that time are already U.S. citizens. “
I’ve tried to find this language in the U.S. Constitution, I’ve found nothing in the Constitution to support this. If anyone has found this in the Constitution, feel free to cut and paste.
I’ve tried to find this language in U.S. Law, I’ve found nothing in the the law that says this. If anyone has found this in U.S. law, feel free to cut and paste.
I’ve seen some folks stacking a bunch of court decisions to try and support this (if Case A means this, then Case B must mean this, which means Case C would mean this, and Case D dah, dah, dah).
I’ve found no court decision that says a person must be born to U.S. citizens to be considered a natural born citizen.
It would be nice if U.S. law, or the Constitution did say this, but it doesn’t look like this language exists in the law or the Constitution
“..one needs to be born on U.S. soil to two parents who at that time are already U.S. citizens. “
I’ve tried to find this language in the U.S. Constitution, I’ve found nothing in the Constitution to support this. If anyone has found this in the Constitution, feel free to cut and paste.
I’ve tried to find this language in U.S. Law, I’ve found nothing in the the law that says this. If anyone has found this in U.S. law, feel free to cut and paste.
I’ve seen some folks stacking a bunch of court decisions to try and support this (if Case A means this, then Case B must mean this, which means Case C would mean this, and Case D dah, dah, dah).
I’ve found no court decision that says a person must be born to U.S. citizens to be considered a natural born citizen.
It would be nice if U.S. law, or the Constitution did say this, but it doesn’t look like this language exists in the law or the Constitution
Freeper “South Dakota” posted the below summary several weeks ago. I don’t know how to contact to ask permission, so I hope SD doesn’t mind if I re-post here.
Excellent summary of the NBC conundrum, with case reference:
In Minor v. Happersett (1875), the Supreme Court defined two classes of persons. The first class consists of children born in the United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The second class consists of all other U.S.-born children, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. The Court used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to members of the first class. Regarding members of the second class, the Court doubted they were even citizens, let alone natural born citizens. In the Court’s opinion, natural born citizens are “distinguished from” aliens or foreigners, suggesting that a natural born citizen is someone who is not a “foreigner” (foreign citizen) at birth [05].
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court, reversing prior precedent, ruled that, under some circumstances, children born in the United States, of non-U.S.-citizen parents, acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. But, to this day, the Supreme Court has never ruled that such children are natural born citizens. On the contrary, our nation’s highest court has consistently used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to persons born on U.S. soil, to U.S.-citizen parents.
Foreighn diplomats are not “under US jurisdiction”. Their loyalty is to their own country.
If they were “under US jurisdiction”, then NYC and DC could solve their budget problems by forcing the foreign diplomats to pay their traffic tickets.
They are long reads, but IMHO it's worth the time.
Links:
-PJ
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.