Cory Bernardi said:
“It’s clear to me at the least that US President Joe Biden is struggling with dementia.”
Posted on 02/19/2021 5:30:31 PM PST by Beave Meister
FascistBook is going to have to black list about half the world as the next few months go by. Foreign nations, friend or foe, are not going to simply ignore the fact that a mental patient is playing U.S. President.
Yep! I thought of that too.
What would that be? Jan. 21, 2023? Hmmm, Joe is gonna be mighty slow by then.
“When a thief steals your stuff right in front of your face, are the victims expected to do nothing about it?”
The election fraud was massive and in plain sight. This cannot stand!
Cory Bernardi said:
“It’s clear to me at the least that US President Joe Biden is struggling with dementia.”
Agreed. Comes as a pleasant surprise.
Bookmark
The media did indeed. And Biden's own ads which blanketed the country portrayed him as forceful, strong, competent, well spoken, etc...with zero response from the Trump campaign to counter this image on most of these media outlets.
Not true the first time you posted, not true the second time you posted, and won’t be true even if you posted it a million times.
Get a clue - do some basic research - and stop spreading false information.
I think you are the in the minority here, though it’s a fait accompli. The pod people won.
Thanks for the correction. I thought she was born in Toronto.
Civil Rights act of 1866:
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;
14th amendment:
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.
The eligibility clause has stated that there are TWO classes of citizenship, natural born citizenship and citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment have both specifically referenced the latter and made no mention of the former. Both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment apply the standard of Jus Soli to citizenship. Natural Born Citizenship must, therefore, apply the higher standard of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis
Don't tell me I'm wrong without a counter argument.
She was born in Oakland, to two foreign nationals. Anchor baby.
You are wrong, RC One is completely correct.
You should do some reading, start here:
http://usnaturalborncitizen.com/
No, I am completely correct.
You have been posting false information about this for years as well. You are willfully ignorant - at best.
Just a cursory amount of research would allow you to find this information that we have discussed previously on another thread:
If the Framers did not intend for the phrase they put into the Constitution - Natural Born Citizen - to mean what it meant at the time they wrote it, they would have written out a definition into the Constitution to redefine it. Since they did not, we can only assume it meant what the phrase meant when they wrote it out - the English common law definition - those born within the borders of the realm are naturally born citizens. There are a number of court cases where it is defined in this manner with regard to those born with far looser connections to the United States than Marco Rubio, Chester Arthur, Nikki Haley or Kamala Harris.
The first case where it seems this was dealt with by a court was Lynch vs. Clarke in New York over a dispute with who could inherit property - there was a law on the books stating that only a “U.S. Citizen” could inherit property, and the presiding judge (apparently in this court the judge was called a “Vice Chancellor”) made this declaration: “Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.”
In another case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over the citizenship of a person born who was born to Chinese parents (it was illegal at that time for Chinese immigrants to become U.S. Citizens) it was declared that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, and Justice Field, who wrote the opinion, actually referenced the Lynch v. Clarke decision in the ruling of the Court: “After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.” This case was In re Look Tin Sing.
Another U.S. Supreme Court case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 dealing with the same issue of a child born to Chinese parents made the same ruling and also declared him to be a natural born citizen in the ruling by virtue of his right to citizenship by birth. All of those above cases were in the 1800s.
There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1939 with the title Perkins v. Elg http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/325.html which dealt with the issue of a woman who was born in the U.S. to Swedish citizens who returned to Sweden with her when she was four years old. Her father was naturalized prior to this as a U.S. Citizen and held dual citizenship. She then came back to the U.S. and was admitted entry as a citizen at the age of 21. For whatever reason, her father later did away with his U.S. Citizenship status and the equivalent of the INS at the time declared she was to be deported. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this, finding she was a natural born U.S. Citizen by right of birth and even declared specifically that she was eligible to be President of the United States in the ruling. A past President, Chester Arthur, was born with an Irish father who was not yet naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, though his mother was born in Vermont where Arthur himself was born.
Detractors like to ignore all of information and court cases and instead rely totally on a case Minor v. Happersett - seeming to deliberately misquote the ruling - indeed, the justices specifically stated they were *not* making a finding of every scenario that constitutes a natural born citizen in their ruling: “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 [p168] 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.***” Minor v. Happersett - full text of ruling https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
Conflating citizen with natural born citizen again.
The plain language of Article II Sec. makes it clear they are not the same.
So according to you, all those Chinese tourist babies born here and taken back to be raised as good communists are eligible to be President?
Laughable.
The founders used Vattel’s definition and if you were any student of history, you would know that.
You probably do and are just another operative against the Constitution.
This Jus Sanguinis connection is exhibited in US law as early as 1790 and is exhibited in English common law even farther back.
If Kamala Harris is a natural born citizen, she is a natural born citizen of Britain as both of her parents were British subjects at the time of her birth in the United States. Her father was born in Jamaica in 1938, when it was still a British colony and he was a natural born British Subject.
Kamala was born in 1964 in California while he was still a British Subject. Under British law, his nationality would have transferred to Kamala just as, under American law, a child of two American parents born on a cruise ship in foreign waters would also be a natural born American Citizen.
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens
Naturalization Acts of 1790
If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, "no person, except a native-born citizen"; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.
Alexander Porter Morse
all Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively ... are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.
British Nationality Act 1730
All persons born out of the legience of His Majesty, His Heirs, or Successors, who have ... or shall inhabit or reside for ... seven years or more in any of His Majesty's colonies in America ... shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be His Majesty's natural-born subjects of this Kingdom.
British Plantation Act 1740
All children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
William Blackstone, 1765
What does British law have to do with whether Kamala Harris is a natural born citizen of the United States?
I think you are confusing the issue of whether one can be President with whether one should be President.
The founders used Vattel’s definition and if you were any student of history, you would know that.
That would be quite a feat, considering that Vattel did not write in English and the phrase “natural born citizen” did not appear in any English translation until 10 years after the Constitution was drafted. If the Founders used the French term “naturels,” you might have a point. But they didn’t, so you don’t.
You probably do and are just another operative against the Constitution.
So he must be part of the conspiracy because he doesn’t buy your cockamamie legal reasoning? That sort of talk is a great way to ensure you are never taken seriously.
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.