Posted on 07/26/2024 7:59:03 PM PDT by 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).
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
For some reason it’s not letting me download the file securely. I’d like to read it though. Is it posted at The Post Email?
Nothing will pertain to Harris but the letter of the law would be laid down on a Republican candidate
Their original intent was half-assed. Yes, I disrespect it. It took the 14th to try and straighten it out. And that didn’t even work.
And those opinions made our country great due to their opinions translated into the Constitution.
I'm sure millions of Americans agree with you that the 3/5 opinion was what made our Country great. (SARC) Why am I even talking to you? You're a racist. Jim Rob even had to call you out on your bigotry.
You can also get it on SCRIBD: https://www.scribd.com/doc/300919680/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-the-natural-born-Citizen-Term-in-Our-U-S-Constitution
Also see the following link about some of the other key Marxist and Communist subversives in the USA in addition to Obama who helped undermine our culture and language. If you want to learn more about the Marxist/Communist subversives who worked to undermine our culture and manipulate the language here in the USA read this book: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2022/08/01/who-was-karl-marx-the-men-the-motives-and-the-menace-behind-todays-rampaging-american-left-by-james-simpson-3/
The 14th was meant for strictly turning slaves into statutory Citizen. It’s been perverted into creating anchor babies who feel they should be granted entitlement to run for president these days. Trump hopefully will end birthright citizenship and terminate the third worlders daca status.
Thanks for the links, Mr Kerchner. I will read them tomorrow. What ever happened to Mario Apuzzo? Is he still practicing law these days?
I’m only respecting the Framers original intent. I’m sorry you can’t handle respecting a true Constitution originalist and have to resort to name calling. That’s what the leftist did when challenging Obama’s natural born Citizenship. Called them racist!
Attorney Mario Apuzzo passed away due to complications from a severe case of CoVID: https://www.thepostemail.com/2021/10/11/attorney-mario-apuzzo-has-passed-away/
If you have any trouble with SCRIBD and their pay wall, etc., you can also get that white paper of mine on the “natural born Citizen” term in the presidential eligibility clause of our Constitution about the Who, What, When, Where, Why and How as one of the sections of this online book which you can read online there, or download it to read locally. No pay wall: https://www.calameo.com/books/005841003b6b2119ce92d
Oh no! I hate that. He had those Fogbow commies stirred up pursuing Obama. I followed his cases.
Thank you. I’ve about to open up the links.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 165:
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.
The question before the Court concerned a woman who was a citizen of the United States. The citizenship of Virginia Minor was not contested.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167-168:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U. S. 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Having stated that it was unnecessary to solve the doubts CJ Waite cited in dicta, the Court proceeded to not solve them, they not being relevant to the case of Minor.
Virginia Minor's citizenship was never in question before the court because it was a stipulated fact, agreed to by both parties before the trial. Minor, Transcript of Record, page 8:
Agreed StatementSTATEMENT
[excerpt]
It is admitted by the pleadings that the plaintiff is a native-born, free white citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri; that the defendant is a registrar, qualified and acting as such; that the plaintiff, in proper time and in proper form, made application to him to be registered and that the defendant refused to register the plaintiff solely for the reason that she is a female, (and that she possesses the qualifications of an elector in all respects, except as to the matter of sex, as before stated.)
Both parties agreed, as a matter of stipulated fact, that Virginia Minor was a native-born, free white citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, and that she was qualified as an elector in all respects, except as to the matter of sex. The question before the Court was whether a woman, being a native-born, free white citizen, could be barred from voting solely on account of sex.
The answer was yes. Nobody had a constitutional right to vote for President, whether male or female, and restrictions were a matter for the State to decide..
The Nineteenth Amendment, subsequent to Minor, did not give women the right to vote. It declared that where men had been given a right to vote, women must be granted an equal right to vote. The State retains the power to dispense with a popular vote and to elect delegates to the Electoral College via its Legislature.
See the more recent case of Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
169 U.S. 704The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.
[...]
169 U.S. 705
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
The Constitution does not say a mumbling word about parents, or their citizenship. The child in the United States of two illegal aliens, both in a detention center awaiting deportation, is born a United States citizen. A child of foreign parentage born on U.S. soil, acquires U.S. citizenship at birth unless he or she is the child of a visiting accredited diplomat or of visiting royalty, and thereby enjoys immunity from United States laws. The prevailing precedent is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
In Wong Kim Ark the dissenting opinion of Fuller C.J., joined by Harlan J., at 169 U.S. 706, said in reference to the majority opinion of the Court,
The English common-law rule, which it is insisted was in force after the Declaration of Independence, was that “every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England.” Cockb. Nat. 7.
That accurately states the state of English law that was in effect in the colonies when the Declaration of Independence was issued.
Every one of the original thirteen states adopted so much of the English common law as was not inconsistent with the state constitution. They did so explicitly, either in their written state constitution, or in their written state statute law.
As was stated in Won Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 702,
The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,” contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
169 U.S. 704The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth.
[...]
169 U.S. 705
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2755257/PA-TedCruzruling.pdf
Elliot v. Cruz, 137 A3d 646 (Pa Cmmw Ct 2016)
Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a “natural born citizen” includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.Accordingly, because he was a citizen of the United States from birth, Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States, and the objection filed by Carmon Elliott to the Nomination Petition of Ted Cruz is denied.
The 14th was meant for strictly turning slaves into statutory Citizen. I
As shown by the introduction of the 14A citizenship clause by Mr. Howard, his intent of the clause was quite clear and specific.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Congressional Globe, House, June 13, 1866, 39 Cong, 1st sess, pg 3148:
Representatives DEFREES and WRIGHT asked permission to print some remarks upon this question of agreeing to the 14A proposal. Without objection, there requests were granted. The entire proposal was then read, and the vote recorded, yeas 120, nays 32, not voting 32. Bingham voted Aye.
RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN
Thaddeus Stevens addressed each each section of joint resolution. His comments on the first section as proposed by the Senate are below. Nobody else rose to comment on any section of the joint resolution.
A few words will suffice to explain the changes made by the Senate in the proposition which we sent them.The first section is altered by defining who are citizens of the United States and of the States. This is an excellent amendment, long needed to settle conflicting decisions between the several States and the United States. It declares this great privilege to belong to every person born or naturalized in the United States.
That is all the words said in House debate about the citizenship clause, by anybody. The recorded vote is on the next page near the top of the first column, immediately following the reading of the full 14A, which continued over to page 3149.
Page 3148: https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=269
Congressional Globe at the Library of Congress
Page 3149: https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=270
Senate Debate on Civil Rights Act of 1866 authored by Sen. Trumbull
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=070/llcg070.db&recNum=603
Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?Mr. COWAN. I think not.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
Mr. COWAN. The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.
Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.
Haven't you argued in the past that what "framers" say in debate, in related print, or elsewhere, but NOT included in the text of the law itself, is irrelevant?
Didn't you say to me that rationale described in The Federalist was just one man's opinion? Didn't you say to me that the justifications laid out in the Preamble have no force of law?
Then how you can you point to the debate about the 14th amendment and take the opposite view that what Senator Howard said about the law should be used to interpret the law when you reject the same thing when it was what Madison or Hamilton said about the Constitution?
BTW, you links don't work for me.
-PJ
Representative John Bingham 1862 (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., pg 1639 (1862):
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif
In 1866 while introducing the bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law.
The LAW they were talking about was the Civil RIghts Act of 1866 which states:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
Everyone seems to forget the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which is why the Law/Amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records of when they were debating the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and you will see that the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!
What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16
Supreme Court Case Minor V. Happerset:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
And last but not least:
Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
“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”
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.
