Harris, Haley, and Ramaswamy Cannot Be President

The Post Email ^ | August 29, 2023 | Don Frederick

[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.

[FreedomForce]

I don’t like Haley either, but i’d still vote for Trump of he chose her. I just wouldn’t be too happy about it.

[DiogenesLamp]

No worries FRiend.

[batazoid]

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). The concept of natural law is closely related to the concept of natural rights.

Simply put: It is the natural right of a person to be born a citizen within the jurisdiction of its parents’ citizenship jurisdiction. These citizens obtained their citizenship as a natural right at birth without the need for positive law.

[JayGalt]

That’s a stretch. By giving birth right citizenship to a baby it’s Indian citizenship is automatically stripped away? IDTS. The baby did not elect to have US citizenship so it’s Indian citizenship would not be renounced. Any citizenship decision would be made upon attaining the age of maturity.

“When an Indian citizen voluntarily (consciously, knowingly and without duress, undue influence or compulsion) acquires the citizenship of another country, his Indian citizenship automatically terminates. This provision, however, does not apply during a war in which India is engaged.”

[nickcarraway]

He is Swiss.

He was never Swiss. That's an anachronism. The Principality of Neuchatel, which during his lifetime was ruled by the Prussian. It didn't become part of Switzerland until the century after he lived. How could he be Swiss?

[Dilbert San Diego]

Well, there you go. He’s not a citizen of India by virtue of being an American citizen.

[Just mythoughts]

One hand washes the other. He was one of them and they are corrupt and perhaps vulnerable to blackmail.

Yes. The liberals make no bones about who they are ... republicans pretend they are upscale country club piety.

[woodpusher]

You were busted on this last month by Penelope Dreadful and myself. That time you attempted to use the title of a different book. This time you try to make the book and its author anonymous. As you were informed then:

The other book that you produced a page from is on British Statutes (not common law) and your Page 26 is specifically under the heading on page 22 of "7 Anne Chap. 5. A.D. 1708 An Act for naturalizing foreign Protestants."

You can get rid of all those judges you cited. They have nothing to do with the page 26 you exhibited. The page you exhibited was written by the President of the Courts of Common Pleas, of the Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania who was never a justice of the supreme court of anywhere, and not by anyone else.

- - - - -

https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=159#159

159 posted on 07/25/2023 3:40:10 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp

- - - - -

https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=168#168

168 posted on 7/26/2023, 6:55:28 AM by Penelope Dreadful

- - - - -

https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4169134/posts?page=169#169

169 posted on 7/26/2023, 6:17:26 PM by woodpusher

[JayGalt]

You are really funny. Did anyone say he is a citizen of India? He was a citizen of India at birth.
I know nothing of his present citizenship circumstances nor is it relevant to me since I would not vote for him in view on his political positions and character.

[DiogenesLamp]

He was never Swiss. That's an anachronism. The Principality of Neuchatel, which during his lifetime was ruled by the Prussian. It didn't become part of Switzerland until the century after he lived. How could he be Swiss?

He is identified as Swiss in everything I have ever read on the topic. The Encyclopedia Britainica labels him as a "Swiss Jurist."

Perhaps he regarded himself as Swiss, perhaps not. Perhaps Prussia paid little attention to Neuchatel, and it was effectively Swiss.

I very greatly doubt the Prussian King would have tolerated his ideas about overthrowing Kings, because those Prussians tended not to have a very good sense of humor about challenges to their authority. Maybe Neuchatel was autonomous at that time.

So you got me. He might not technically be Swiss, but he is identified as having a Swiss Character, and he is constantly identified as Swiss.

[DiogenesLamp]

You were busted on this last month by Penelope Dreadful and myself.

No I wasn't. I just don't consider the first page of the book as significant as you and she appear to do. It's still the report from the Judges of the Supreme court, and it still says what it says.

You can get rid of all those judges you cited.

No, I think i'll keep them. They allowed their report to be cited as the source of the information, and they had sufficient power to make their displeasure known if they didn't agree, and the fact that they chose not to do so indicates they agreed with the book.

You are quibbling about trivial stuff because you cannot address the substance which clearly states our ideas of Natural Born Citizen descend from Vattel.

And that's why you try to bite this evidence around the edges instead of refuting it with better evidence, which you don't have.

[TiGuy22]

3/5 was a compromise. South wanted 5/5.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Looks like we will fall short of 300 replies to this.

Perhaps everything that can be said about natural born citizenship has already been said.

[DiogenesLamp]

I expect we will get over 300 replies before this thread is completely dead. :)

[odawg]

“Then again, if this subject were so clear and straightforward, there would not be ongoing discussions on Free Republic, with hundreds of replies, discussing what natural born citizenship means.”

Actually, it is clear and straightforward. If natural born citizenship means nothing, nothing at all, then why did the Founders put it as one of three requirements to be president. Only time is is mentioned in the Constitution.

People pretend not to understand, just like they pretend to not understand “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

You see, you see, there are commas in that clause and surely the commas mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be infringed.

[MileHi]

Yeah. Right. And neither is Barack Obama. Oh wait. He DID serve. Which means this NBC business is still a load of garbage.

Yes. Any part of the constitution that the "ruling class" choses to ignore, like the second amendment for instance, is obviously garbage. And any part they want to misapply, like the commerce clause, to enhance their tyranny is sacrosanct.

Why can’t you people wake up to reality?

Oh, the irony.

[Dilbert San Diego]

I don’t think people pretend not to understand.

As we can see by so many responses in the comments here, there are conflicting opinions as to what natural born citizenship means.

Some Freepers say that both of your parents must have been citizens at the time of your birth , for you to be a natural born citizen.

Other Freepers say , that being born in America makes you a natural born citizen regardless of the citizenship of your parents. Those Freepers believe that since a citizen by birth did not have to be naturalized to become a citizen, that this status makes one a natural born citizen .

I think people on both sides have sincerely held beliefs. I disagree that people are pretending not to understand.

Apparently the term natural born citizen is not defined anywhere in our laws. This adds to confusion. You can be genuinely confused or unsure without it being a situation of pretending not to understand.

[odawg]

“Apparently the term natural born citizen is not defined anywhere in our laws.”

No law is defined in the Constitution. The Constitution has no glossary. The writers used commonly accepted legal definitions in vogue at the time, and they are still being used today. One of those legal terms was natural born citizen. You think they just pulled it out of their ass? The term is defined in the Naturalization Act of 1790, one year after the Constitution was adopted.

Historically, the entire population believed that natural born citizen meant a citizen born in the United States of citizen parents.

The Congress issued a ruling about John McCain being a natural born citizen since he was born in Panama because his parents were stationed there. The ruling said that since his parents were citizens, he was a natural born citizen. That makes perfectly good since. But that short time ago, people knew about natural born citizenship was different than just citizenship.

As far as the debate on Free Republic, well, yes, plenty of posters here have their heads up their asses.

[rx]

C_A Historian Wayne Madsen brings forth evidence of BHO Sr.'s having been brought over from Kenya by that 3-letter agency to morph him into a C_A-manipulable Kenyan politician that would be US-trained and beholden to it.

Stanley Ann Dunham (SAD) was a child of an extended family of intel community grifters (to include Stanley, Gramps, FMD and Toot) with whom Barry the foundling child (with attached regular grifter payments) was placed.

Spoiler: she was not his bio-mom.

BHO Sr and SAD were juxtaposed while they were both present at the U of H East-West Center. With that pretense of a marriage, SAD could get a "married" last name for her supported foster child and BHO Sr. could strengthen his grip on a more permanent visa status.

Immigration was onto the couple's likely false representations of their "married" life to the point that BHO abandoned his investment into that faked marriage and paternity of Barry as he sought to switch his attendance to Harvard. SAD clung to the extremely thinly documented fiction of invalid birth certificate particulars (possible substantiated at best by publication in the Honolulu Advertiser (now Star-Advertiser), possibly placed by Toot (or, as is more likely, not at all)).

As the Obama marriage fiction fizzled, SAD jumped the Soetoro adoption/marriage last-name-lending in a new locale with another CIA-supported military operative, Lolo.

Even though SAD is said to have died in 1995 of ovarian cancer, if Barry's and Maya Soetero Ng's DNA show no close relationship, Barry will have been proved not to be the biological son of SAD. If Barry and Malik's DNA are shown not to be close relatives, it will have been proved that Barry is not the biological son of BHO Sr., destroying Barry's decades-long fictional narrative.

If any birth certificate ever existed that could even loosely be construed to show Barry to be a natural born US citizen, we may rest assured that would have been the LFBC presented to Savanah Guthrie, national TV fake news cameras, and the White House Press Corpse (sic) on 4/27/2011 by the 35-year Perkins Coie chairman and then-current White House Counsel, Robert F. Bauer.

If, as suspected, neither of those comparisons suggested in the above graphic show close relatives, the COLB and LFBC will have been shown (YET AGAIN) to have been forged frauds on the American public, for which the profferers must be brought to account.

Kerchner v. Obama, fraught and reliant upon internally inconsistent and very-suspicious-if-not-false representations about Barry's naissance, was likely for such reasons not picked up SCOTUS.

DNA results resulting from tests taken as the graphic above suggests will directly and very likely show Barry, his Perkins Coie and Hawaii Department of Health teams to have authored pernicious Certificate of Live Birth and Long Form Birth Certificate fictions that attempted to support what has been nothing short of a coup to install an ineligible Communist as POTUS. On that, SCOTUS should be able to make several definitive rulings, some of which will apply to the Biden installed regime as well (as regarding diamond thieves getting caught and being forced to give back the loot).

[Dilbert San Diego]

LOL. We know the Founding Fathers did not pull legal terms out of their asses. LOL. Let’s try to have a respectful discussion.