Who is Responsible for Verifying Presidential Eligibility?

The Post & Email Newspaper ^ | 26 Jul 2024 | Sharon Rondeau

[CDR Kerchner]

(Jul. 26, 2024) — As posted Tuesday by the “X” account @Kancel Kamala, on August 20, 2020, then-Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Christopher John England sent a “Certification” to then-Alabama Secretary of State John H. Merrill naming the party’s 2020 nominees for President and Vice President, respectively, as “Joseph R. Biden” and “Kamala D. Harris.”

The 18-page set of documents remains available at the Alabama Secretary of State’s website.

As part of the “certification” process, each nominee provided a signed and notarized “Consent to Nomination of the Democratic Party” and “affirmed” he or she was constitutionally qualified for the position sought on November 3, 2020 (pp. 8 and 9 below).

[CDR Kerchner]

Neither the 14th Amendment nor the Wong Kim Ark (1898) U.S. Supreme Court decision and holding make one a Natural Born Citizen. See this legal analysis article: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.html

[DiogenesLamp]

Now, there's a pretty good chance that SCOTUS will rule 9-0 in favor for Kamala but at least the matter will have been settled.

Why on earth would we want it more settled in a wrong direction?

It needs to be left alone until the courts can be educated. This may take awhile.

[DiogenesLamp]

Once again, I knew it was you the moment I saw the wall of text.

:)

[DiogenesLamp]

Mr. TRUMBULL.
I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens.

Your very own quote. It says the people who are born here are citizens because of naturalization laws.

Exactly what the 14th is. It is one big "naturalization" law.

"Naturalization" is not "natural born."

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

The people that write this crap don't even read what they themselves write.

They plainly state "naturalization clause" and then claim this is "natural born." No, "naturalization" is *NOT* "natural born."

Only natural born is natural born.

Also, "Wong Kim Ark" doesn't *SAY* "natural born." It says "citizen."

They are either inadvertently conflating the meaning of the one thing to be the same thing as the other, or they are just lying.

Wong Kim Ark doesn't say "natural born."

14th amendment doesn't say "natural born."

Neither thing says "natural born" so where do they keep getting those words out of documents that say no such thing?

[CDR Kerchner]

Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important and Worth Preserving: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.html

The Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How the “natural born Citizen” term got put into the presidential eligibility clause of the United States Constitution: https://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf

[DiogenesLamp]

You should still care what the Supreme Court said in 1898 which they (and I) linked. There are only two types of citizens, naturalized and natural-born.

This is correct, and anyone who acquires citizenship through the 14th amendment is naturalized.

Look it up. Read the debates on the 14th amendment. They say over and over again the 14th amendment is a "naturalization" law.

"Natural born" are people who do not require any positive man made law to be citizens. It's that simple.

[DiogenesLamp]

Regarding Obama.....The Obama Timeline is very interesting. Conclusion - even if he was born in Hawaii, his mother was not old enough at the time for her son to be considered 'natural born'.

The mother's age is only a factor for foreign birth. It is not a factor for birth inside of an American state or territory. If Obama is born in Hawaii (which looks dubious) he gets 14th amendment citizenship, which is naturalization.

If he is born in Canada, and there is some circumstantial evidence to indicate he was, he's not an American citizen at all, because as you said, his mother was too young.

[DiogenesLamp]

After a candidate fulfills the two constitutional requirements, which I believe no government entity checks, voters and their notion of eligibility are the final determiner.

And if voters have been lied to and steered wrong all their lives, they will invariably make the wrong decision.

[DiogenesLamp]

First, the word “Parent” is absent from US Constitution. May be you can tell me on which page in the US COnstitution it appears in context of NBC status.

You don't have to put the word "parents" in there when you use the word "citizen."

This is like demanding they mention the word "bullet" when they mention "arms."

It doesn't have to be included because bullets are an inherent part of "arms", and therefore does not require a separate mention.

Same thing with the word "citizen."

I keep telling people they have not researched this topic sufficiently, because they keep tripping over that word "citizen" which is the best proof of all.

"Citizen" inherently requires parents in the context in which it is used. Prior to 1776, there were only "subjects." There were no "citizens" except in Switzerland.

Switzerland was the only place in the world that used "Citizens" to refer to members of a nation. England used "subjects.

Switzerland was a Republic, and England was a Monarchy.

In a Monarchy, "Subjects" are created by mere birth on the King's land, regardless of who their parents are. In a Republic, "Citizen" can only descend from "Citizens." It cannot be created any other way.

Since Jefferson explicitly rubbed out the word "Subject" on the Declaration of Independence, and wrote instead "Citizen", we have followed the path of a Republic instead of a Monarchy.

Our laws therefore do not follow Monarchist laws of Subjectude, they follow Republican principles of Natural law.

"Citizens" descend from Citizens, and nothing else.

[Gena Bukin]

It needs to be left alone until the courts can be educated. This may take awhile.

Then what's the point of all of this?

There will be no better opportunity than there is right now for Trump himself (standing) to directly challenge the eligibility of Kamala Harris (two non-citizen parents) at the state level.

All you need is a single state secretary or legal official to remove her from the ballot and that's it. It's game time. Fast-tracked to SCOTUS.

It'll go to a 6/3 Supreme Court. Do you think these justices need to be more educated on the issue? Well, put a case in front of them and educate them!

[DiogenesLamp]

Your chart ignores that 1898 case. That case, interpreting the 14th amendment, led to the following definition: “every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States . . . is a natural born citizen,”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1394/226610/20220531125853185_Amicus%20Brief.pdf

The document you cite is clearly modern, and obviously written by an idiot who can't seem to understand what Wong Kim Ark said.

Wong Kim Ark did *NOT* say "natural born." It said "citizen." And it relied on the 14th amendment to call Wong Kim Ark a "citizen."

The 14th amendment is a naturalization device. It doesn't create "natural born" citizens. It only creates "naturalized" citizens.

Therefore, this modern moron simply made the leap to call "citizen" and "natural born citizen" the same thing, and they are clearly not.

Just so much wasted time reading the gibberish people put out who don't know what they are talking about.

[palmer]

NBC seems to be a psyop. NBCers could say that they are on the side of truth and "natural law" and my view is the psyop. Fair enough, can't argue that point. Must confine arguments to the facts of each case. In this thread, ignoring the 1898 case law which defines NBC relative to qualification for presidency very clearly.

I posted in many threads debating the BC font expert Polarik. Mostly harmless fun but clearly the Obama admin got mileage out of it handing out altered paper copies of a contemporary document and letting one reporter feel the embossing on the contemporary doc that was shipped from Hawaii. All a giant circus.

Likewise posted in some of the threads promoting the two (among other)"experts" Dr Shiva's scatterplots of Michigan votes and Dr Frank. They tried to prove that vote tabulators gave incorrect results. But in most cases nationwide the tabulators produce the same results (or close) each time they operate. The main problem with the rigged or hacked voting machine theories is they distract from the very real problems of mass mailed (unsolicited) ballots, harvesting, lax or non-existent signature checking. The Georgia signature checking audit was a sham, only auditing the county that did relatively rigorous checking and not Fulton.

[DiogenesLamp]

Then what's the point of all of this?

Have you ever watched Star Trek, the Next Generation?

Did you see the Episode where the Cardasian interrogator was trying to force Captain Picard to say there are Five lights when there were only four?

Over and over again he tried to torture Picard into saying something that wasn't true, and over and over again Picard refused to be bullied into claiming something was true when it wasn't.

Well that's what this is about. I'm not going to let anyone bully me into accepting their wrongheaded and ignorant claims about what "natural born citizen" is, when i've done enough research to convince me of what it is.

I'm not going to be bullied or intimidated by all the "experts" or the "courts". You want to change my mind, do it with contemporaneous facts from the founding era and the writings of the people involved.

I have not the slightest interest in what latter day courts think. I do not think with their brains, I think with my own, and I will not take their word for something when they haven't dealt with the evidence on the other side of the issue.

All you need is a single state secretary or legal official to remove her from the ballot and that's it. It's game time. Fast-tracked to SCOTUS.

And they will just get it wrong. The mind virus of what people think they know is too widespread, and they will simply go along with the majority of legal opinion without any due consideration of the evidence on the other side of the issue.

They will issue a knee jerk reactionary opinion, and it will just be wrong.

It'll go to a 6/3 Supreme Court. Do you think these justices need to be more educated on the issue?

Yes!

Well, put a case in front of them and educate them!

You will never get this case to the Supreme court. Every lesser federal court will simply dismiss it, because "everyone knows" that born a citizen equals "natural born citizen", even if you only get citizenship through a naturalization law.

There is zero will to look any deeper, and also they don't want to be embarrassed questioning the legitimacy of a black woman.

[CDR Kerchner]

Kamala Harris has been a Usurper as the VP. We cannot allow her to become another "Usurper Commander in Chief", like Obama has been, both directly in office and as the puppet master for Biden. If she achieves that goal our Constitutional Republic will in 4-8 years be forever gone unto the trash heap of history with the Communist tied Kamala Harris https://www.trevorloudon.com/2020/10/why-is-no-one-except-the-president-calling-out-kamala-harris-communist-ties/ as the front person and Obama controlling her as a puppet in background from his home and office in Washington DC.

[Jim Noble]

There will be no better opportunity than there is right now for Trump himself (standing)

Show me where in the Constitution there is anything about "running for President". All 50 State Legislatures are free to appoint Trump Electors at will, the presence or absence of Kamala Harris in the preference election that occurs in November is irrelevant to the process.

[palmer]

Neither thing says "natural born" so where do they keep getting those words out of documents that say no such thing?

In https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/ they clearly make the case that English law equated born and natural-born citizenship. Then they apply it to American law via the 14th Amendment. It's very clear other than the Barcroft comparison of natural-born abroad (two US citizens) and natural born in the US. The conclusion in that section is that all such citizens are natural-born.

[DiogenesLamp]

...ignoring the 1898 case law which defines NBC relative to qualification for presidency very clearly.

You keep repeating that, and I firmly believe that is factually incorrect.

Now you show me in the holding of Wong Kim Ark where it says Wong Kim Ark is a "natural born citizen."

If you cannot show me in the holding of Wong Kim Ark where it says "natural born citizen", will you *STOP* repeating that it's in there?

The main problem with the rigged or hacked voting machine theories is they distract from the very real problems of mass mailed (unsolicited) ballots, harvesting, lax or non-existent signature checking. The Georgia signature checking audit was a sham, only auditing the county that did relatively rigorous checking and not Fulton.

Separate issue, but I agree with you here. The bulk of the fraud was fake/illegal ballots.

Now show me in the Wong Kim Ark decision where they claim Wong Kim Ark is a "natural born citizen", or stop claiming that it says that.

It doesn't say that.

[palmer]

Why do you use kerchner.com for serving images? Do you use or allow others to use the HTTP logs?

Note that I am not against personally served images. I consider those a lot more traceable than imgflip (also in this thread), because imgflip sells its data to liveramp and liveramp sells to anyone with money.

The problem with images in threads like this is that the timestamps on the images can be tied to the timetamps on the posts. That then ties the FR username to the IP address used to access the image.

[DiogenesLamp]

In https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/ they clearly make the case that English law equated born and natural-born citizenship.

The error in judgement here is to equate English law with American law on the topic of citizens.

English law didn't deal with "citizens", it only dealt with "subjects." We tossed out our status as "subjects" when we declared Independence in 1776.

We didn't follow "subject" law to create our citizens. We followed natural law. Our example was Switzerland, not England. English law had no allowance for a "subject" to renounce his allegiance.

Then they apply it to American law via the 14th Amendment.

And that doubly proves Wong Kim Ark is a "citizen", not a "natural born citizen."

Natural born citizens do not need a 14th amendment to be citizens, they are citizens naturally. Additionally, the framers of the 14th amendment explicitly say it is a "naturalization" amendment. They were naturalizing the freed slaves, and they said that's what they were doing in the debates on the 14th amendment.

You cannot make something natural through law. You can only naturalize. That's what they did.

The conclusion in that section is that all such citizens are natural-born.

A lot of people come to wrong conclusions when they don't have sufficient evidence, or accurate evidence. But in this case, using the 14th amendment cannot even get you to "natural born citizen" without a leap of faith.

The prevailing evidence is against the 14th being the same thing as "natural born citizen."