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 ...
I believe that is what I said. Diplomatic credentials disable US jurisdiction.
This again. The willful ignorance of so many here about this subject is tiresome. YOU DON’T HAVE TO HAVE CITIZEN PARENTS IN THIS COUNTRY TO BE NATURAL BORN. IF YOU’RE BORN HERE, UNLESS YOU’RE BORN TO A FOREIGN DIPLOMAT OR HEAD OF STATE, YOU’RE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. Nobody cares what some European said about it in the 1750’s. At this point, it seems racism is the driving force for this argument. Nikki Haley shouldn’t be president because she’s A RINO scumbag, not because she’s ethnically Indian.
The U.S. Constitution was not provided with a glossary. The word “liberty” is not defined in the Constitution. The founders and framers understood what the words terms they carefully chose meant. As did most of the American electorate who through their votes and states approved it. Only the modern Progressive/Marxist language manipulators following the teachings of the Italian Communist linguist Antonio Gramsci over the last 100 years have succeeded in muddying the water of the words and terms in our U.S. Constitution for the purpose of replacing our Constitutional Republic with a Socialist/Marxist governed nation following also the Cloward-Piven Strategy too.
See the legal treatise on Principles of Natural Law by Vattel - Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212, which the founders and framers used to write the founding documents and a literal source for some of their ideas, words, and terms: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
See the holding in the Minor v Happersett (1874) U.S. Supreme Court unanimous decision for their stating what a “natural born Citizen” was without a doubt: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/
See this site for more history of how the nbC term got into the presidential eligibility clause and why: https://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
And of course I suggest you read my White Paper, all of it for more help to you in understanding the original intent, meaning, and understanding of the “natural born Citizen” term: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org
Not interested in hair splitting. If someone is born here they can run.
Many on Free Republic enjoy discussing this subject. It comes up over and over.
No amendment necessary.
SCOTUS needs to speak.
Without weasel words or self-justifying rhetoric, to produce a pre-approved conclusion, to thereby formally (as opposed to merely de facto) allow obvious foreign influence at the level of POTUS.
John Jay was not just whistling Dixie, you know.
weak
Meaning what.
No foreign spice allowed at the level of POTUS.
Plain vanilla U.S. Americans only.
It is and would be a fool’s errand to give ground on this critical of an issue.
Four out of Trump’s five children are non-NBC, MM. We have Tiffany, and that is it. Not necessarily happy to report that, since the Trump influence is and will be a long-term boon to the politics of this country. But it is what it is.
The poster sounded frustrated about this issue coming up again and again. Hence my flippant response that people enjoy discussing it. Otherwise the issue would not be brought up here.
PJ: Thanks for sharing those two links re the scholarly Joseph DeMaio’s writings about the “natural born Citizen” (nbC) issue and language usage manipulation. He has written on the nbC issue since 2009. You can see his writings over those many years at this link: https://www.thepostemail.com/?s=DeMaio
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org
They already have, and on more than one occasion.
Yes they have indirectly but never directly on the nbC term in a presidential eligibility challenge. As Justice Thomas said, they are “evading” that issue. I believe Chief Justice Roberts has been the prime-mover behind “evading” addressing nbC in a presidential eligibility challenge since Obama came on the scene, since the already knew the answer would not be in favor of Obama’s status and were afraid to address it at the time out of fear of the “racism” charge, or someone had some dirt on Chief Justice Roberts that kept him from encouraging the court to take up an eligibility case back in 2008 and 2009. Now he is backed in the corner and in CYA mode as more and more ineligible candidates have come on the scene, like Harris.
For some relevant SCOTUS cases on kinds of citizenship see Section 4 at this link: https://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Also see this chart for the various kinds of citizenship mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/Citizenship-Terms-In-Constitution-Chart.jpg
The issue is not enjoyable.
COTUS is being used as toilet paper and this is one of the significant ways that that happens.
Regularly.
Hence why it “comes up” and gets discussed.
You can’t define a unique COTUS term via a mere statute.
SCOTUS must speak. Marbury v. Madison.
It’s been discussed but not on all fours/on point such that POTUS candidates can clearly and inarguably be winnowed down at the Secretary of State level (as in, the SOSs of the several states, establishing the contents of national election ballots) to plain vanilla U.S. Americans only.
Good idea. Go to work with your Congressional rep or a Congressional rep in a relevant committee to bring such a bill before Congress. Go for it.
A blast from the past. See this from former Chief Justice John Marshall: https://www.scribd.com/doc/21575466/Chief-Justice-John-Marshall-Quote-20091026-Issue-Wash-Times-National-Weekly-pg-15
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.
