Posted on 12/31/2023 12:53:14 PM PST by Dacula
When I was a medical student one of my minor jobs was footprints of infants.
That Mombasa document is a fake. An actual footprint of an infant looks nothing like what was on that piece of paper.
People need to stop beating this horse, it died when Obama was sworn in.
The MAGA Base will not go for Nimrod-duh in a big way.
She’s a looser [sic] in the general.
The problem with your position is that unless Haley’s parents registered her birth with the Indian government, she was never an Indian citizen and thus, born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power. India does not automatically confer citizenship upon the children of their citizens that are born abroad unless they are diplomats.
American Indians are not a good analogy, as they were considered separate sovereigns and not subject to the law of the USA within the confines of their reservations. So until that law was passed, any child born on a reservation was considered to have been born in a foreign country.
not interested in either anyhow.
Right you are. Obozo was the worst prez in our lifetimes and Nikki would be even worse. Mr. Ramaswamy, otoh, is smart as they come.
Trump likes him, so he may get some post in the next Trump administration. He’d make an awesome Press Secretary, as he tells the truth and has more information in his head than the entire press corps combined. He’d make them look like the biased idiots they are.
“Obama is a peculiar case. It is not certain that his father was even Barack Hussein Obama Senior, native of Kenya (18 June 1934 – 24 November 1982). His genetic father was more likely Frank Marshall Davis (December 31, 1905 – July 26, 1987), an American journalist, poet, political and labor movement activist.”
which baby daddy paid child support?
He is right that she is eligible. He is wrong that she will win.
Court Rulings are not called “Opinions” for nothing.
The same people making the same arguments a couple times a week. It doesnt matter. No one on FR is going to decide who gets on the ballot.
If you REALLY want to understand the “Natural Born Citizen” thing, read this website:
http://www.usnaturalborncitizen.com/index.html
Read the whole thing. Most people that even bother to go there seem to read just as far as the first sentence they encounter that they assume confirms their preconceived notions.
Native born would be an anchor baby, as was decided the Wong von Ark case that South Dakota references
Natural Born requires both parents to be citizens.
To my knowledge SCOTUS has never ruled on this as being a requirement for the Presidency. I am not familiar with the Minor vs. Hapersett case, but it would appear that it was unrelated to Presidential qualifications.
It is known that three Founding Fathers had that book (Jefferson, Franklin for sure and Madison or Hamilton I believe was the other). The book was written in French, not yet translated and all the men were fluent in French.
Under the Vattel definition the following people are/were not eligible: Obama, Haley, Cruz. Ramaswamy and Harris are a question mark as I do not know when their parents became citizens.
If SCOTUS ever rules on this, I believe they would rule that we have now accepted, by by common usage that there is no difference in the two terms. I would vociferously disagree with that decision.
To ascertain the correct definition of a natural born citizen, you need to know why it was placed in the Constitution. It was there to make sure, as far as possible, our elected presidents’ loyalties lie solely with the Republic.
As is any child born here to parents subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government.
The Courts are all going to declare her eligible, and people who know what they are talking about will say she is not.
It does not, but far too many people think it does.
The Supreme court has held a strict methodology for interpreting constitutional law, and one of the provisions of their methodology is you don't get to amend the constitution by accident.
Any reading of the constitution that does not specifically address the particular constitutional point in contention cannot be construed to have modified the Constitution inadvertently.
The 14th was not created for the purpose of modifying Presidential eligibility, therefore it cannot be interpreted as having done so.
And besides that, it only says "citizens", it doesn't say "natural born citizens."
The people who debated the amendment said the 14th amendment was a "naturalization" of former slaves. They literally say that anyone who is made a citizen by the 14th is a naturalized person.
Not according to Ann Coulter.
Say what you want about Coulter but in the process, refute it.
As she says...
The Brennan footnote was not part of the decision. It does not have the force of law. Yet, today, we act as if Brennan’s absurd dicta is the law of the land for no reason other than: a) sheer ignorance and b) a fear of being called “racist.”
No U.S. Congress or Supreme Court ever debated and then approved the idea that children born to mothers illegally present in the country should automatically become citizens. Consequently, any president or Congress could simply state that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens. If only we had a president or Congress that would do so.
Probably the most accurate comment I am ever likely to see in this entire thread.
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.