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 ...
When you press the NBC kooks on their made up notions, yeah. This is what they believe.
No it isn't.
I've explained this many times, it seems you have just missed my explanations.
In 1787, only the father could pass on citizenship. The mother was automatically granted citizenship if the father was American.
Women couldn't pass on citizenship, (except in out of wedlock births) until the 20th century. It started with the Cable act of 1922.
We are a community. I prefer not to be too blunt. It is risible that these simple facts continue to be restated incorrectly over and over.
Whether or not people chose to misstate the Constitution & 14th amendment depends on the presence of a vested interest.
Any true-blue Democrat/Communist from any country meets the NBC qualification ... primarily because no member of the “opposition party” has the courage, fortitude and principles to challenge it.
It’s an interesting theoretical argument, something to debate. But realistically, it’s a dead and buried issue, a totally moot point.
This is exactly how I see it.
I just add this to the pile of proof that our courts are run by idiots and corrupt people.
The Natural Born Citizen eligibility clause has never been directly adjudicated by SCOTUS. But it has been obliquely addressed in other cases.
In 1814, the SCOTUS heard a case known as the Venus Merchantman case. Among other issues, it concerned itself with the impressment of US merchant sailors by the British Royal Navy into their service on the high seas. That SCOTUS, ALL of whom being members of the founding generation defined what a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN was by quoting the entire 212th paragraph of Emmerich De Vatel’s Law of Nations, which was considered to be THE treatise on international law and was referred to regularly by statesmen at the time. That definition, which was incorporated into the majority opinion authored by Justice Livingston follows:
Quote of section 212, Chapter 19, Book 1, Law of Nations, by Vattel, written in 1758:
Ҥ 212 - Citizens and Natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to
this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its
advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents
who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the
children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and
succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what
it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen,
on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The
country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens
merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of
discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they
were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of
a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of
his birth, and not his country. “
Note that the above reference was made in 1814, 54 years before the adoption of the 14th amendment, which makes no reference to, nor does it modify Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the constitution, no matter what the original intent might have been. The framers of the constitution were patriarchs, who believed that the citizenship status of the children followed that of the father. It is clear that they were concerned with undue foreign influence upon the office of the presidency, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
To believe that the framers would have accepted that a person born a British subject, (as Obama himself admitted to being owing to his FATHER) when they had to exempt themselves with the grandfather exemption in clause 5 of Section 2 in order to be POTUS eligible, beggars belief and logic. Subsequent rulings of the SCOTUS in Minor vs Happersett, and Wong Kim Ark vs US serve only bolster this conclusion.
I believe that the court is reluctant to examine this issue, given the ghastly implications for the actuality of an illegitimate POTUS having made executive decisions for 2 terms, and the reality of an ineligible VP casting votes as the President of the Senate. How would all of their actions be unraveled? It would be a God awful mess of the worst sort...
I understand people not liking Harris, Haley, or Ramaswamy, getting hung up on their eligibility to be POTUS, is a waste time because they are all eligible, we should be talking about why they would all be total disasters if they were POTUS and for people to not waste their votes on them.
I have my doubts that Obama was eligible to be POTUS, there was never any concrete evidence to prove him ineligible. All the time spent debating the issue allowed Obama and the media to paint birthers out to be nuts, instead of why Obama was and still is person who is tearing this country apart.
True and he passed through my mind as I typed. A person with divided loyalties at birth is a risk. The country of their other citizenship also has the right to enforce that country’s jurisdiction in various ways.
There are many other risks many of which Biden embodies: treason, treachery, malfeasance, blackmail and dementia.
The Founders guarded against those risks they could address proactively.
“The dimrats tried to disqualify McCain because he was born in the canal zone although both parents were American citizens and his father was assigned to a US military installation there.”
McCain was NOT a natural born citizen.
He was born in a foreign country. Panama. He was NOT born in the Canal Zone, even though that wouldn’t have mattered. He was born in Colon Panama, exempted from the Panama Canal Zone Treaty.
His father being in the military has nothing to do with John McCain’s citizenship.
His parents being both U.S. citizens overseas DID make a difference though.
It meant that John was a native born U.S. citizen at birth. In other words there was no need to apply for naturalization upon returning to the U.S.
A natural born citizen (which is only a requirement for office of president and vice president) HAS TO BE BORN IN THE USA.
U.S. SOIL! NOT an embassy, NOT “some” territories or possessions, but U.S. SOIL!
Last I knew, the “soil” in Panama is Panamanian.
And then there is the problem that BOTH parentS have to be U.S. citizens at the time of the birth of the person wanting to be president/vice president.
These things were what the framers KNEW to be natural born citizen meaning at the time.
John Jay KNEW it! That is why he wrote George Washington about it.
That’s why George Washington “The former president borrowed The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel on 5 October 1789, according to the records of the New York Society Library” and never returned it until 221 years later.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2010/may/20/george-washington-library-book
The word the, the word liberty & many other terms are not defined. The lack of definition is a specious argument.
If they are naturalized citizens at the time of the child’s birth on US soil, then the child is also a natural born citizen.
It would have to be challenged in court.
Realistically, how can anyone prevent someone from running for president, based on him or her not being a natural born citizen? Realistically, election officials in states are not going to remove such people from the ballot. Realistically, election officials would be sued, if they tried to do so.
Heck, this erudite group of principled conservatives on Free Republic, can’t agree on the definition of natural born citizen. Do we really expect various state and local election officials, to make such a determination?
Then that leaves the courts, and federal court cases, as the place where this issue can be settled. Then you have to decide, who will decide to file a lawsuit, against a specific presidential candidate, and/or political party, to get this issue into court?
The Supreme Court doesn’t just sit around and issue opinions on something, unless someone has filed a lawsuit on the subject. And even there, it’s likely a lower federal court will have to hear such a case, before it gets to the Supreme Court for final resolution.
When it comes to the “natural born citizen” requirement, you don’t know what you don’t know.
You THINK you do, but you really DON’T.
Bolling AFB, District of Columbia.
It did cause a problem when I presented my birth certificate from District of Columbia for social security. They wanted naturalization papers because they thought I was born in Columbia.
India doesn’t allow dual citizenship, so how does that factor into things?
The Natural Born Citizen eligibility clause has never been directly adjudicated by SCOTUS. But it has been obliquely addressed in other cases.
In 1814, the SCOTUS heard a case known as the Venus Merchantman case. Among other issues, it concerned itself with the impressment of US merchant sailors by the British Royal Navy into their service on the high seas. That SCOTUS, ALL of whom being members of the founding generation defined what a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN was by quoting the entire 212th paragraph of Emmerich De Vatel’s Law of Nations, which was considered to be THE treatise on international law and was referred to regularly by statesmen at the time. That definition, which was incorporated into the majority opinion authored by Justice Livingston follows:
Quote of section 212, Chapter 19, Book 1, Law of Nations, by Vattel, written in 1758:
Ҥ 212 - Citizens and Natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to
this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its
advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents
who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the
children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and
succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what
it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen,
on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The
country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens
merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of
discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they
were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of
a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of
his birth, and not his country. “
Note that the above reference was made in 1814, 54 years before the adoption of the 14th amendment, which makes no reference to, nor does it modify Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the constitution, no matter what the original intent might have been. The framers of the constitution were patriarchs, who believed that the citizenship status of the children followed that of the father. It is clear that they were concerned with undue foreign influence upon the office of the presidency, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
To believe that the framers would have accepted that a person born a British subject, (as Obama himself admitted to being owing to his FATHER) when they had to exempt themselves with the grandfather exemption in clause 5 of Section 2 in order to be POTUS eligible, beggars belief and logic. Subsequent rulings of the SCOTUS in Minor vs Happersett, and Wong Kim Ark vs US serve only bolster this conclusion.
I believe that the court is reluctant to examine this issue, given the ghastly implications for the actuality of an illegitimate POTUS having made executive decisions for 2 terms, and the reality of an ineligible VP casting votes as the President of the Senate. How would all of their actions be unraveled? It would be a God awful mess of the worst sort...
Just to clear things up, what year was Ron DeSantis’s mother naturalized? Anyone know?
Natural Born is a dead concept. It has been subject to a White-Out treatment in the Constitution. After President Hussein Natural Born means nothing any more. The Congress declared it so. Now anyone on Earth is eligible to be President if he meets the age requirements and if some celebrity 32 year old runs way over on the Left that age restriction will disappear also.
And McCain. He was born in a civilian Hospital in Panama, not in the then US territory Canal Zone.
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.