Posted on 01/02/2024 11:51:15 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
LOL, that’s adorable, Nicky.
There are conflicting views on the Constitution's meaning of 'natural-born-citizen'. As far as I know, neither Cruz or Haley's 'natural-born-citizen' status has been challenged in the courts or states. My guess is that if there was a challenge, the SCOTUS would define/clarify the 'natural-born-citizen' reference in the Constitution to include anyone born in the U.S. regardless of the person's parents' citizenship status.
Big talk, Nimroda.
Trump doesn’t need to debate anyone. Been there, done that.
I WOULD NOT EAT ANYTHING SHE TOUCHES
Shut up Nikki. You should not be allowed in any debate because you are ineligible to hold the office.
Let’s go back to Clint Eastwood & “The Empty Chair” debate.
The DNC “democrazy” have given Trump a colonoscopy EVERY DAY for the past EIGHT YEARS. I’m pretty sure America knows more about Trump than he knows about himself.
Stick it Nimrata
-fJRoberts- !
ah yes, Mumbai used to be Bombay. I don’t remember when they changed the name of the city.
Reminds me a bit of Peking duck. When Peking became Beijing, the dish has still been called Peking duck.
Nikki baby, you wreak of desperation and your eyes look as though you might be on some kind of speed. That and you’re very skinny. Do you ever eat? Do you ever sleep? Is Trump running through your mind so much that you thought you saw him through your blinds? Get a sammich and calm down. lol
Time for Nimroda to take a hike and take that goofy Meatball with you.
I demand that Nikki Haley debate ME.
I have as much chance of winning as she does.
Biden will use Trump’s example and skip the presidential debates.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DU is calling...they want you back where you belong troll.
DeSantis is not going anywhere, but I heard he promised the Rumper a pardon once he takes the presidency in 2024
Nim-a-rodent will be lucky to win the South Carolina primary.
WIKI
after further consideration he also reversed his opinion and concluded in 1785 that the statutes did not make the children natural born subjects—rather, there remained a “relict of alienage in them.”
Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton’s draft constitution provided: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
While the Committee of Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen, as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed “citizen” to “natural born citizen”, and the residency requirement to 14 years, without recorded explanation after receiving Jay’s letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.
St. George Tucker, an early federal judge, wrote in his 1803 edition of William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, perhaps the leading authority for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for the terms used in the Constitution, that the natural-born-citizen clause is “a happy means of security against foreign influence” and that “[t]he admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against.”
Because of the large number of Framers who went on to serve in Congress, laws passed by the early sessions of Congress have often been looked to as evidence of the Framers’ intent. The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “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...”. The 1790 Act is the only act that has ever used the term, which was omitted by the replacement Naturalization Act of 1795. The 1795 Act merely declared that such children “shall be considered as citizens of the United States”.
Lynch v. Clarke of 1844
....
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.
Supreme Court Justice Peter Vivian Daniel in a concurring opinion in the 1857 case Dred Scott v. Sandford, quoted an English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel’s 1758 treatise The Law of Nations (Le Droit des gens) for a definition of natural-born citizen: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”.
In 1875, Chief Justice Waite, in the voting-rights case Minor v. Happersett, stated:
“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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Consistent with the earlier decisions, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision in Perkins v. Elg that a person born in the United States and raised in another country was a natural born citizen, and specifically stated that they could “become President of the United States”.[64] The case was regarding a young woman, born in New York a year after her father became a naturalized U.S. citizen. However, when she was about four her parents returned to Sweden taking her with them, and they stayed in Sweden. At age 20, she contacted the US-American embassy in Sweden and, shortly after her 21st birthday, returned to the United States on a U.S. passport and was admitted as a U.S. citizen. Years later, while she was still in the United States, her father in Sweden relinquished his United States citizenship, and, because of that, the Department of Labor (then the location of the Immigration & Naturalization Service) declared her a non-citizen and tried to deport her. The young woman filed suit for a declaratory judgment that she was an U.S. citizen by birth. She won at the trial level, and at the circuit court—where she was repeatedly described as “a natural born citizen” — and finally in the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court decision quoted at length from the U.S. Attorney General’s opinion in Steinkauler’s Case (mentioned in the next section #Government_officials’_interpretations) including the comment that a person born in the United States and raised in another country could yet “become President of the United States”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States)
In your last 6 posts you have called 6 different members of this site a “troll.”
Accordingly, you receive a D- for being both unoriginal and uncivil.
She has no chance if the Democrats have a chance of barring her using the natural born clause.
Some state has to bar persons who are not natural born citizens from its primary ballot and legislate that persons that are born to a foreign parent and have a right to foreign citizenship as a result or have any possible duty to a foreign government via a parent shall not be placed on the state’s primary ballot.
Let Nikki file a lawsuit to be on the ballot.
In your last 6 posts you have called 6 different members of this site a “troll.”
Accordingly, you receive a D- for being both unoriginal and uncivil.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You prove that I am dead over the target. Thank you for that.
Stop posting left wing talking points...otherwise I will continue to call you people out.
Simple as that. BTW...ya got a nickel for that post??? I always wondered what you people are paid to do what you do.
So let’s put this in a clearer and more concise synopsis.
This is a war. I’m tired of you assholes getting treated with kid gloves. So....I will treat you with the respect you deserve. Period...end of story. I’m going to call out you asshole trolls every.....single.....time.
IF you don’t like it? Go back to KoS with your tail between your legs.
So you receive a F- for your pathetic attempt at playing the victim.
Are we clear?
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.