Posted on 07/27/2023 1:23:56 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Trevor Sutcliffe @TrevorSutcliffe
Vivek Ramaswamy is not legally eligible to be President. The natural born citizen clause predates the Fourteenth Amendment by several decades. He is a Fourteenth Amendment/Wong Kim Ark citizen, not a natural-born citizen. His campaign for the Presidency is illegitimate.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Trevor Sutcliffe is an inbred, mouth-breathing, microcephalic who doesn’t understand the difference between what is law and what is in accordance with the US Constitution.
Wrong.
In Slaughter-House Cases (1872) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court affirmed the framers’ originally intended meaning of “jurisdiction”. In both
cases, a child born on U.S. soil, of a foreign-citizen father, is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction at birth. Such a child is subject to the jurisdiction of the
foreign government to which the child’s father owes allegiance. Consequently, such a child is not a 14th Amendment citizen at birth .
Also.
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), children born in the United States were divided into two groups: (a) U.S.-born children of U.S.-citizen parents, and (b)
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 group [22].
In Perkins v. Elg (1939), the Supreme Court referred to Marie Elizabeth Elg as a natural born citizen. She was born in the United States; her father
was a U.S. citizen by naturalization, and her mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage [23].
In Kwock Jan Fat v. White (1920), the Supreme Court referred to Mr. Kwock as a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States; his father
was a native-born U.S. citizen; and his mother was a U.S. citizen by marriage [24].
To this day, whenever an Opinion of the Supreme Court has referred to an individual as a “natural born citizen”, the individual was always born in the
United States, of U.S.-citizen parents. The Supreme Court has never, in any of its majority opinions, used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to
someone whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.
Prove him wrong!
He was born in Ohio. He’s a natural born citizen. It doesn’t matter if your parents are from Neptune, if you’re born here it counts. Only exceptions are children born to foreign diplomats or heads of state.
I missed that. Do you remember when that happened?
Well there is the word "citizen", which doesn't come from English Common Law. The correct word for English Common law is "subject."
Then there is the fact that the word "citizen" actually comes from Switzerland. Here is etymology online for you to look at.
But probably the most compelling piece of information is this:
Good synopsis...Thanks.
hussain’s father was British subject in the US on a student visa.
I blame the GOP for the damage done to our country during obama’s caper. They should have called him out early on and exposed him as a fraud...all we got was crickets..and biden.
I don't understand your question. I think you have a misconception about how naturalization works with underaged people.
If an alien comes to the US and becomes a citizen, his children are automatically naturalized and they don't have to pass any tests.
Same with "at birth" naturalization.
Now ye've done it! Ye've got the screeching banshee after ye!
It *IS* a naturalization law according to the guys who were debating it in March of 1866. It also smells like a naturalization law. Passed by Congress? Check. Artificial bestowing of citizenship to people not born with it? Check.
And no court has ever agreed with that novel theory about the 14th amendment.
I don't care what "courts" say. I believe in getting first hand information from the source, not third hand opinions from people who don't have all the facts.
I’m afraid no court, anywhere, agrees with the debate position you referenced.
Did I mention how much I don't care about third handed opinions put forth by courts?
Was the court at the Constitutional convention? Were they part of the State's ratification conventions?
No they were not. But the Court's *I* reference were, and *THEY* know what they are talking about because *THEY* were present at the events in question.
Right?
My recollection is that her enrollment was on August 19th, but we also have the statement by her friend. (Susan Block, I think. Been awhile.)
Her friend said Stanley Ann arrived at her home in Seattle, and did not know how to change a diaper.
Kinda odd for her not to know how to do a diaper after 10 or 15 days taking care of him. Could it be she was in a home for unwed mothers where others did it for her?
But was that still in effect when Obama was born?
Yes it was. Hawaii is rather unique. It had so many occasions were children were born on ship in transit to Hawaii, that it became normal to register the child's birth at the first Hawaiian port a ship docked at. That port became "place of birth."
I've looked at the Hawaiian statutes in place in August of 1961 and they allow a child born outside of Hawaii, up to a year to get a Hawaiian birth certificate.
I got into an argument about that with someone recently, and now I don't know what to believe. It appears I was basing what I believed on a story in the Washington Post that turned out not to be true.
Imagine that. A Story in the Washington post that wasn't true!
I realized I didn't really care where he was born. He's dead, and will only trouble us when we think about the bad things he done.
Some people believe in truth over opinion. Some people defy the group think and the hive mind.
Yes, arguing about it is pointless in real terms, but I think it is important for people to be aware that reality, and what "the courts" declare, is not necessarily the same thing.
I think it is a very important piece of evidence. Firstly it proves there was no consensus that American Citizenship was derived from English Common law.
And it comes from the legal community of Philadelphia, which is exactly where the Constitutional convention was held. If anyone should know what was intended by "natural born citizen", it should be the Philadelphia legal community which participated in the event.
Diplomatic staff in the U.S. live "on the economy" and their children are born in U.S. hospitals, not in an embassy compound.
Consider this. If Vivek is not a natural born citizen under the rules as *I* understand it, I won't oppose him for that reason. Same as I decided to support Ted Cruz in the primary even though I didn't consider him to be a NBC, so too would I support Vivek.
My thinking is that because we already broke the clause with Obama, we might as well take advantage of the broken clause ourselves.
I know the courts won't do anything to stop it, and the bulk of the American public is already buffaloed on the issue, so why not?
(He was born in Ohio. He’s a natural born citizen. It doesn’t matter if your parents are from Neptune, if you’re born here it counts.)
You’re highly wrong.
so you are saying embassies are NOT us territory? or that Children to us citizens have never been birthed there?
or bases, or territories...
jump in the lake.
strain at a gnat, swallow the leviathan.
Never said that.
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.