Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Presidential Eligibility Suit: Harris not a “natural born Citizen” NEW YORK CASE TO BE APPEALED TO U.S. SUPREME COURT
The Post & Email ^ | September 2, 2024 | Sharon Rondeau

Posted on 09/04/2024 4:10:53 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-416 next last
To: GMMC0987

Will it go nowhere or will it be an excuse to dump Kamala?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The ‘rats should jump at this opportunity to be rid of that lying, ignorant Marxist and Tampon Tim too.


41 posted on 09/04/2024 5:47:42 PM PDT by fortes fortuna juvat (A vote for Harris/Walz is a Vote for the destruction of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

To be a natural born citizen three things must be true.

1. You must be born on U.S. soil.

2. Both parents must be citizens at the time of your birth.

3. You cannot have Alegent to any other country (in dual citizenship).

All three must be true.


42 posted on 09/04/2024 5:50:55 PM PDT by dereknunley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: blueplum
Like it or not, Harris is a natural born citizen same as any child born in the US from birth-tourism.

Harris is a naturalized USC 8 Sec. 1401 citizen and is NOT a natural born citizen.

The remainder of your argument further erodes her natural born citizen status as a natural born citizen doesn't have dual citizenship.

43 posted on 09/04/2024 5:51:40 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Macho MAGA Man

Ha, Obama lied six ways from Sunday about his citizenship, and they STILL made him president.. (spit)


44 posted on 09/04/2024 5:52:26 PM PDT by unread (I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC..!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Macho MAGA Man

I think we all know the likely response...no standing.


45 posted on 09/04/2024 5:53:50 PM PDT by skr (Righteousness exalteth a nation: sin is a reproach to any people. - Proverbs 14:34)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unread
...and they STILL made him president..

Do you propose that another usurpation by "them" be allowed uncontested?

46 posted on 09/04/2024 5:56:44 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

bullSchiff blueDUMB,

you don’t know Shiite from Shinola


47 posted on 09/04/2024 5:57:47 PM PDT by A strike ("Rise Peter, kill and eat.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: skr
I think we all know the likely response...no standing.

Speak for thee, not for me.

48 posted on 09/04/2024 5:58:15 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: TECTopcat

Yet you just spent time on it making a reply.


49 posted on 09/04/2024 6:00:04 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Macho MAGA Man

Ya should have done itgat fedora she became VP. To late now.


50 posted on 09/04/2024 6:10:05 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpp113

This conundrum is why I predict the SCOTUS will not take the case. They will say it is a political issue, not a legal or equitable issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If the Justices want to be perceived by the public to be doing their job they must give a clear answer to a clear question: Under the Laws of the Constitution, is a person whose parents were foreigners at the time of his or her birth eligible to be elected President of the United States? Yes or No


51 posted on 09/04/2024 6:11:16 PM PDT by fortes fortuna juvat (A vote for Harris/Walz is a Vote for the destruction of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; metmom; ransomnote

...certainly better than you understand Sarcasm /s

“Your “sarcasm” has been proffered as a legitimate argument.”

Certainly it was not, I only asked a random question I found myself curious about

trying to figure out those odds flipped through my head when I saw the headline.

I knew tangentially that they were starting to do more of these procedures starting in the mid 60s in very the very rich areas cause the doctors would brag about doing these so they could make their t-times and bill more.

Did some quick research and found out that there is probably not a statistically large probability for Kamala. I would wager say 3-5% since she was born in 1964.

“From 1965 to 1985 C-section delivery rates went up over 400% and today about 1 out of every 3 babies is delivered by C-section. This sudden increase is attributable to several factors including cultural changes and advancement in technology. Specifically, the emergence of electronic fetal monitoring equipment and the use of ultrasound and sonograms.”

To me this is shocking

and in my non sarcastic opinion there should be no medical reason for 33% of babies in the US today to be delivered by C-section, and if there is Someone should figure out the real reason.

https://www.birthinjuryhelpcenter.org/birth-injuries/delivery-complications/c-section-birth-injury/c-section-history/

also there is a huge body of evidence that c-sections are detrimental to children and their development so maybe this might help explain Kamala


52 posted on 09/04/2024 6:11:35 PM PDT by algore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

“ Finally, the Luce-Celler Act of 1946 allowed Indian immigrants to become naturalized citizens. Kamala’s mother emigrated in 1958. It would be her mother”

Was that a constitutional amendment? since the issue of natural born citizens is a Constitutional one. Congress could pass a law making a dead Yak a natural born citizen, doesn’t mean it will pass Constitutional scrutiny.


53 posted on 09/04/2024 6:11:53 PM PDT by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

It’s never too late to upset an usurpation of office.


54 posted on 09/04/2024 6:15:48 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Macho MAGA Man

The sad thing is that this is brought by a regular guy in upstate NY. Of course the big bad (chicken shit) GOP is AWOL.


55 posted on 09/04/2024 6:18:13 PM PDT by kenmcg (ti hi o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Macho MAGA Man
The State Department tries to make the case that the 14th amendment grants birthright citizenship to the births in the United States from illegal alien parents. In 8 FAM 301.1 Acquisition by Birth in the United States it says:

The [United States Supreme] Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”

I think this interpretation by the State Department is wrong and must be challenged.

  1. Starting with this Wikipedia entry on Domicile (law):

    1. Domicile is governed by lex domicilii, as opposed to lex patriae which depends upon nationality, which is the relationship between an individual and a country... Domicile is distinct from habitual residence where there is much less focus on future intent.

      1. From LSD.LAW

        Lex domicilii, a Latin term, refers to the law of the country where a person resides permanently. It determines a person’s legal rights by establishing their domicile, which is the place where they have their permanent home and intend to return to after any temporary absence.

      2. From this Wikipedia entry on Habitual residence:

        In conflict of laws, habitual residence is the standard used to determine the law which should be applied to determine a given legal dispute or entitlement. It can be contrasted with the law on domicile, traditionally used in common law jurisdictions to do the same thing.

        Habitual residence is less demanding than domicile and the focus is more on past experience rather than future intention. There is normally only one habitual residence where the individual usually resides and routinely returns to after visiting other places. It is the geographical place considered "home" for a reasonably significant period of time.

      3. From Black's Law Dictionary (6th edition, pp. 484-485):

        Domicile. A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning. Smith v. Smith, 206 Pa.Super. 310, 213 A.2d 94. Generally, physical presence within a state and the intention to make it one's home are the requisites of establishing a "domicile" therein. Montoya v. Collier, 85 N.M. 356, 512 P.2d 684, 686. The permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere. A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile. The legal domicile of a person is important since it, rather than the actual residence, often controls the jurisdiction of the taxing authorities and determines where a person may exercise the privilege of voting and other legal rights and privileges. The established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling, place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.

        "Citizenship," "habitancy," and "residence" are severally words which in particular cases may mean precisely the same as "domicile," while in other uses may have different meanings.

        "Residence" signifies living in particular locality while "domicile" means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Schreiner v. Schreiner, Tex.Civ.App., 502 S.W.2d 840, 843.

        For purpose of federal diversity jurisdiction, "citizenship" and "domicile" are synonymous. Hendry v. Masonite Corp., C.A.Miss., 455 F.2d 955.

        Domicile of origin. The home of the parents. That which arises from a man's birth and connections. The domicile of the parents at the time of birth, or what is termed the "domicile of origin," constitutes the domicile of an infant, and continues until abandoned, or until the acquisition of a new domicile in a different place. Struble v. Struble, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W.2d 279, 283.

    2. General principles: Domicile of Origin

      Domicile of origin is established by law at birth to every individual. It refers to the domicile of the person's parent, and is hard for the person to lose. This means that it is not necessarily established based on where an individual was born or where their parents live.

  2. 8 USC §1101 explicitly states:

    "an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study" is a "nonimmigrant alien."

    (33) The term "residence" means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent.

  3. The Form I-20 for a student visa contains this STUDENT ATTESTATION:

    I certify that I seek to enter or remain in the United States temporarily, and solely for the purpose of pursuing a full program of study at the school named above.

Putting all of this together, a person who is here on a student visa is NOT "DOMICILED" in the United States. They have a "habitual residence" in the United States, but their legal "domicile" is their "principal, actual dwelling place in fact" in their foreign country. This is their domicile of origin, and it becomes the domicile of any child born to a nonimmigrant alien while here.

The 14th amendment does not apply to the children born to nonimmigrant aliens because they fail the "domicile" test.

-PJ

56 posted on 09/04/2024 6:19:03 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Doesn’t mean I’m not hoping, but the courts, lower and upper, have been using that excuse for years when they don’t want to give an opinion.


57 posted on 09/04/2024 6:19:42 PM PDT by skr (Righteousness exalteth a nation: sin is a reproach to any people. - Proverbs 14:34)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Macho MAGA Man

These people should’ve filed this lawsuit four years ago.


58 posted on 09/04/2024 6:20:12 PM PDT by unclebankster (Globalism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kenmcg

“Of course the big bad (chicken shit) GOP is AWOL.”

Red vs Blue, Panem et Circenses

At the end of the day the Owners of both are the same


59 posted on 09/04/2024 6:22:42 PM PDT by algore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

the courts have created at least as much of today’s disrespect of the law as have the other branches of government
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Absolutely true, and to the extent that judges render verdicts that are contrary to applicable laws they are themselves in violation of the law.


60 posted on 09/04/2024 6:25:31 PM PDT by fortes fortuna juvat (A vote for Harris/Walz is a Vote for the destruction of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-416 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson