Posted on 08/30/2023 10:02:25 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Kamala Harris, Nikki Haley, and Vivek Ramaswamy are not eligible to serve as president of the United States. Nor are Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Why? They are not “natural born citizens,” which is one of the presidential requirements outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Making that claim, of course, immediately prompts a response of, “Of course they are natural born citizens! What are you, a racist?” But those who are eager to ridicule and condemn such a statement of ineligibility are merely demonstrating their ignorance of the term natural born citizen. What is important, however, is not what television pundits (or “pundints,” as they often incorrectly refer to themselves) believe the term means, but what the Founding Fathers understood the term to mean when they decreed the following:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Probably close to 100 percent of Americans alive today believe the term natural born citizen simply means born in the United States of America. But that is not what the term meant to the authors of the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Because a court might rule against a President Ramaswamy or a President Haley, I will not be voting for either citizen Ramaswamy or citizen Haley in a Republican primary as things stand now.
I simply don’t trust the judicial system of the United States.
Unless it is made clear by the current Supreme Court, via direct refusal to take a case or by direct positive affirmation, that Vivek Ramaswamy would be allowed to be President, I will not vote for him in a Republican primary.
Unless it is made clear by the current Supreme Court, via direct refusal to take a case or by direct positive affirmation, that Nikki Haley would be allowed to be President, I will not vote for her in a Republican primary.
In my opinion, the natural born citizen requirement is meant to ensure inherent loyalty to the United States. In my opinion, it means not having any foreign citizenship at birth.
We are rooted in reality & in the Constitution.
The question is if you would cede this point what else would you cede on a headlong rush to some nebulous path leading in your mind toward something you think would be winning. The ends justify the means is not a viable mantra for a Conservative nor for an honest man.
If a man gives up fighting for truth with honor all is already lost and any victory pyrrhic.
I think you are confused.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
Vivek is a citizen by statute. A natural born citizen is a citizen by birth and no other Government has any claim on their allegiance.
IMHO look at decades preceding the 14th Amendment. For example, one reason we went to war with England in the War of 1812 is because England would capture American sailors (some say a total of 10K within 10 years) and force them to work on British ships (impressment). To be fair, some of the "Americans" at that time were Brits who had left England to come to America, never became naturalized citizens, and, therefore, were subject to the English draft laws as any other Brit. Thus, those men weren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. but instead were subject to the jurisdiction of England. In other words, those men had to obey England even though they were in the U.S. (I'm not talking about the American citizens the Brits impressed because they looked like Brits. I'm talking about the British citizens the British navy impressed because they had to serve in the military like other men.)
That doesn't mean that immigrants back then didn't have to obey our laws regarding theft or murder or such. It just means that there are some laws that citizens have to obey of their country of citizenship regardless of where they live (at least back in the 19th century when the 14th amendment was written). IMHO, that's what "subject to the jurisdiction of" means. It means, which nation can draft you into their army (or other things a citizen is required to to) or which nation you can vote for, etc.
Baby Boris might have other issues. If he had not lived in thr US at least 14 years, he would not be eligible for that reason.
.
And do we have laws,regarding dual citizenship, or would His being born in the US be overridden by his being a Russian citizen?
What state is on your birth certificate? I have a state department document.
I think ‘DC ‘ is still considered US land, but I do not know what is put on birth certificates.
Enough of this nonsense. All three were born in the US and none of the three would ever be denied the presidency if they won the election. This natural born citizen nonsense carries zero weight with any court or the US Congress. It is a specious argument at best.
Panama John McCain was not an NBC either.
Overseas birth is a killer if you’re hoping to keep your kid’s POTUS options open.
Dad’s the U.S. Ambassador of the foreign country you’re born in? Probably okay.
Dad’s a uniformed member of the U.S. armed forces in hostile occupation of the foreign country you’re born in? You’re probably okay in that instance as well.
Other than that, your U.S. citizenship, if you end up being recognized as a U.S. citizen, will more than likely be by way of meeting the requirements of one or another provision of Congress’ Naturalization statute. Meaning: You are a citizen by statute, and not by nature.
Natural Born Citizens of the United States need not point to any provision of U.S. statutory law, or to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to prove their status. No positive aspect of written U.S. law applies to their situation. They are “Les naturels”!
“Actually, what the founders thought was crap. Especially that 3/5 person nonsense.”
The latter language was arrived at via compromise via negotiation.
And that was a good thing, not crap. For multiple reasons.
You should be more mature in your thought processes.
Ooh. Specious.
Is that bad?
/s
D.C. is not a non-state territory (vis. Barry Goldwater, non-NBC born in Arizona when that patch of land was not yet a state but instead still a bargaining chip).
So then, clearly Vivek is a natural born citizen. He is a citizen by birth, and no other government has any claim on his allegiance.
The founders thought otherwise.. it was birthright citizenship. From that pool a president could be elected.. go ahead and be an Esau, give away your birthright.. do you have a clue why no court will touch it?
That's what I thought. So, this definition is extra-Constitutional?
The Russian embassy like American Embassies in other countries is sovereign territory of Russia or the USA., so technically the child is not born in the USA.
Like I said, this is something that makes conservatives look like idiots arguing over a nonissue.
The Russian embassy like American Embassies in other countries is sovereign territory of Russia or the USA., so technically the child is not born in the USA.
Like I said, this is something that makes conservatives look like idiots arguing over a nonissue.
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.