That's why unconstitutional laws and clearly bastardized views of law and the Constitution must be challenged. Just because we've done it incorrectly for a long time doesn't mean we should keep doing it incorrectly.
So, the Constitution was purposefully bastardized to give anchor babies citizenship and to pretend they are natural born citizens, and we should just accept it and keep going along with it, because it was always done that way? By your logic, nothing unconstitutional should ever be challenged, because it's always been done that way.
I think what's more important is what it means in the eyes of the court.
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
Another possibility is the military gives the Supreme Court the green light to announce they found the 2020 election fraudulent and award the presidency to DJT.
Then again, military events may transpire that cause the office commander in chief to be more important than that of the presidency... who knows, maybe the presidency will be left vacant for a while and DJT serves as CiC.
Be careful on that! I worry that a day or two before the "Joe Biden" term ends, the democrats will announce newly discovered information that proves someone cheated and that Trump was in fact the real 2020 winner and therefore is ineligible to server in 2024.
Maybe that was by design by the democrats to say Trump never left office as Joe wasn't properly inaugurated and Trump was still holding his term? Therfore he forfeited his duties to Joe.
They're lying, cheating, baby-slaying genocidal democrats. This would definitely be one more item they could put on the resume when they arrive at hell.
What isn't? Yes "Biden" took the oath around 10 minutes early. He also had a gun salute reserved for foreign dignitaries funerals. A majority of National Guard turned their backs on the motorcade after the "inauguration".
Seriously, take some time and really think about that. The national guard didn't watch the motorcade, and so four the last four years he's been sitting in the white house and acting like a president...for what?
He can't be elected more than twice. First was 2016. We know they cheated and if they suddenly came with proof and admitted the fact - he would not be eligible to run in 2024. Personally, I'd assume the office and ask the Supreme Court. But, I'm getting the feeling we may have the military running the rest of Biden's term.
If the Supreme Court ruled that he won the election at the very end of his putative second term, his putative second would be viewed as taken from him. I do believe that Trump is CIC, but not President of the corporation, so yes, the military is in COGCON/devolution mode.
Not possible because I think you can serve 2 terms plus 23 months ( might be 24 months)
Obviously this is too cover a situation where someone becomes President during part of someone else's term, so they can complete party if that term plus the additional 2 terms they ordinarily could serve
It's not how long you can serve that I am referring to. It's that you can not be elected more than twice. Scenerio: Trump won 2016 and served his term. He and we think he won 2020. If he is suddenly declared the winner of 2020 by newly discovered evidence and admission by Democrats of "oops" just days before Joe's term ends in 2025 - Trump would be ineligible to serve 2025 - 2029 as he would have been elected 3 times. He could serve out the few days left of the term he was cheated out of but NOT the 3rd term.
To my knowledge K. Hariss was born in the states to Candian and Jamaican citizens, who were here on school visas.
There was a question of her eligibility to be President from a legal standpoint when she was chosen to be VP.
I'm not a law fag but I do know that question will be challenged, and a TRO may be issued giving Johnson the position of acting President until the courts can decide.
All of this is a moot point if they just hide Biden in a freezer for 6 months like they did for Justice Ginsberg.
Besides, this is all a distraction, so we stop looking at the alphabet agencies involvement in the attempted assassination of President Trump.
You are wrong... parents... mother india... father Jamaica. Foreign aid students... kameltoes brought up in Canada. Went to school there. Not American or black lol
But she was born in the U.S. making her an anchor baby/U.S. citizen by birth. Citizenship of her parents is irrelevant sadly. She definitely is not African-American as they like to claim when it suits their purpose.
This Constitutional law expert disagrees with you and explains the 14th amendment around the 7-minute mark, but I recommend watching the whole video for full context.
In fact, the video shows by articles within the 14th amendment that only citizenship of the Father counts towards their child's citizenship.
Mother was from India, yes, but I thought she had Canadian citizenship, you may be correct, but I think that was why Harris was raised in Canada because of her mother's citizenship was Canadian even though she was of Indian descent.
I also stated that Kamala's Father had Jamaican citizenship
I never said Harris was American or black so, I'm not seeing where I was wrong.
Not under the current legal regime - if you are born on American soil, you are a natural born citizen. That’s the only legal analysis that is relevant.
Been telling people this all week. we can justify all we want why she is not fit, but unless the current legal definition of a natural born citizen is clarified by the Supreme Court, she is eligible. Our constitution did not define “natural born citizen”. The most recent Supreme Court court case ruling in 1898 only gave two exceptions to someone being born in the United States, but not inheriting citizenship, and she does not meet either one of those definitions:
Children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
Just a citizen. And if your parents were not permanent residents, then not even a citizen. One of Trump’s fixes to law violations that has been going on for decades.
No shooting necessary. I have done a lot of research on this over the years. The enemy has improperly used the 14 th amendment against America for decades. I do believe this should be made very clear with legislation.
The fact that she was born on American soil means she’s a natural born citizen - that’s the current interpretation. There won’t be any TRO or real legal challenge to it. Don’t shoot the messenger.
(EDIT: It looks like I have not understood. Discussion should continue, as opinions are divided, but the issue does indeed appear to clinched by having two citizen parents (or a father who was a citizen, in which case the mother may well also be a citizen under common law 'coverture') rather than where one is born. Leaving my original comment here, for the discussion, but I think I was incorrect.)
There are potentially several paths to becoming a "natural born citizen". The main one is being born in the United States and not requiring any other naturalization process to become a citizen.
Apparently, there is some uncertainty whether someone born outside of the US jurisdiction but of one or two American citizen parent(s) and is a citizen at birth qualifies as "natural born citizen".
A natural born citizen refers to someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth, and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life. Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
In Harris' case, she needs the certificate that she was born on US soil (under US jurisdiction), because neither of her parents was a US citizen when she was born.
The Constitution does not expressly define “natural born” nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled precisely upon its meaning. There is some uncertainty over whether a person that is born outside the U.S. but still becomes a citizen at birth through a statute is a natural born citizen. One example is U.S. citizenship that immediately passes from the person's parents.
There was no need for the US Constitution to define Natural-Born Citizen, because the authors of the 14th Amendment understood the term’s meaning was already well understood.
Like the term “ARMS” was well understood and self-evident for the authors of the 2nd Amendment, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN” was well understood and self-evident for the authors of the 14th Amendment.
That said, John Bingham — the lead author of the 14th Amendment — he still told everyone precisely how “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN” is to be understood while he discussed the term on the congressional floor. In other words, the “definition” came directly from the author of the 14th Amendment:
"To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth -- natural-born citizens. There is no such thing as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." [Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 37th Congress, 2nd Session]
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” [Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session]
“…OF PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY…”
This is a moot point. In reality, any federal court will view Harris to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be president because she was born on US soil.
That's very interesting, indeed, and I appreciate the sourcing, etc.
However, I think I disagree on one point:
"there was no need for the US Constitution to define Natural-Born Citizen, because the authors of the 14th Amendment understood the term’s meaning was already well understood.
Like the term “ARMS” was well understood and self-evident for the authors of the 2nd Amendment, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN” was well understood and self-evident for the authors of the 14th Amendment.
There is a problem here, because although the authors of the amendment may well have 'understood' (meaning that they ascribed a certain defined meaning to it) the term or expression (although i do not know if "natural-born citizen" was an existing term at the time, like "arms" was in 1776), they are not alive today.
This is why the Supreme Court exists: to interpret and further define constitutional issues if and when they arise.
So, if Bingham et al intended for this to be the definition: "all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens" then it would seem the definition needs to be reinforced by the SC, because those words themselves are NOT in the constitution or the law (amendment).
The "arms" question to. Does the right to bear arms include any and all implementation usable for either defense or attack? Does the constitution guarantee a citizen's right to develop and posses nuclear weaponry, for example?
I'm asking this because HOW these terms are understood and implemented in the current and future times would seemingly need further definition. (I'm absolutely pro-2nd by the way, der. I'm just querying how to approach and understand the issues involved).
I can accept that Bingham et al intended "natural born citizen" to mean (as you have quoted above), BUT, it appears that has not been sufficiently defined in the modern era, and there is a need for the SC to adjudicate, in order to make it clear.
I suppose the issue has never really been challenged in terms of the modern era. It's noteworthy that if such a definition was upheld, then Obama would be ineligible regardless of whether his birth certificate was legit or not, because his father was Kenyan.
Essentially, in addition to saying “NO SPLIT ALLEGIANCES”, Bingham also stated, “NATURALIZED = ADOPTED”; Bingham never asserted “NATURALIZED = NATURAL-BORN.”
The term NATURAL-BORN could not be made more simple than it already was, and Congress fully understood the differences between the words Bingham utilized as he utilized them.
Furthermore, the evils of TYRANNY wasn’t an alien concept for the founders; they didn’t need to define ARMS any more than the authors of the 14th needed to define differences between the terms NATURAL-BORN and ADOPTED.
I mean, I would dare believe, “We the People” should be allowed to own any weapon a government is allowed to wield, due to the fact the government consists of (or SHOULD consist of) “We the People”, and I would dare believe the founders would agree with that, wholeheartedly.
In other words, ARMS are ARMS — whether the arms exist as/on guns, cannons, navy vessels, tanks, flamethrowers, rockets, jets, subs, spacecrafts, space lasers, para-gliders, chemical weapons, planet destroyers, etc. — any freedom-loving American should have the capacity to fortify their existence via any form of mutually assured destruction.
Furthermore, as crazy as the “mutually assured destruction” assertion may be, even with NUKES in the mix, I 100% believe America’s founders would feel the same way, because they knew crazy tyrants could only be matched with crazy offenses/defenses, so they knew how placing defined limits on what ARMS may or may not be could only serve as an act of infringement, an alienation of rights, a crime against any free law-abiding American.
I think this would need to be clarified by the SC. I listened to the lecture, and thought it made 100% common sense, particularly inheritance by birth (in the blood) vis citizenship conferred by human act, such as legislation or document, etc.
Very enlightening.
Rather amazed that the Kamala thing is not more widely understood.
There is one path to be a "natural born citizen" and multiple paths to be a "naturalized citizen" and they ARE NOT THE SAME! There is already a very long post discussing this already on here.
Are you saying, then, that if John Doe's father and mother are both US citizens legitimately and have resided in the US, but happen to travel to Japan on assignment and then John is born there, that he is NOT a natural born citizen?
Sorry but no. The founders were very clear in their papers. They specifically stated that only that generation could skip the natural born requirement because no one's parents were American since America was brand new. I had an excellent US History teacher in high school. She made us read a series of books written.
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
This is literal and completely unambiguous. There is exactly zero argument for her not being eligible. We need another path.
If that is true then we are only wasting time looking like retards trying to twist a way that she is ineligible. The plain truth is that she is eligible to hold the office of President and that is not going to change. Just because we do not like a fact does not mean it is fake news.
Nobody gives a shit if you disagree, What matters is the literal text of the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This was determined in 1898. That is 126 years of legal precedent. Neither you, nor anyone else will ever successfully argue that she is ineligible.
We have to realize that although we'll probably still be "The United States of America" when this is all over, we were apparently sold out as a nation back in 1871 (under the Organic Act). Therefore we are working on America 2.0 at this point, due to all the convoluted BS that has gone on since then, and sorting out the good from the bad while accounting for technological and other advancements that need to be accounted for. On the plus side of doing it this way, we can define president & vice president qualifications once and move the heavens on. Unless we'd all like to grapple with stupid arse phrases like "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is" for time immortal...
I saw an analysis of natural born citizen by some scholar a few years back. If someone remembers, this could your Pepperidge farm moment. It defined the meaning perfectly.
Kamala might be an anchor baby, however she was born in the US and she IS eligible to be POTUS.....
US Constitution says 3 qualifications to be POTUS;
35 years old or older
Natural Born Citizen - which is not defined by the constitution clearly.
Lived in US for at least 14 years.
The CURRENT constitution is not valid - anything after 1871 is gone!
The real Kamala Iyer Harris - Jamaican Indian Caucasion person.......is no longer alive -
this is all a show people......get the popcorn and enjoy.
We need to focus on something other than Kamala is ineligible! The SC ruled on this already and it would take an act of Congress (literally) to change it. This is probably the reason Trump wants to do away with the "anchor baby" crap!
That would be the case, I think. But we'd have to prove Kamala is ineligible and that would be a whole big deal, wouldn't it?
They won’t find her ineligible. She was born in the US.
She is in the same situation Obama said he was in (except that Obama is actually a Muslim born in Kenya but he said he was born here)
Except at least one of Obama's parents was a citizen. As far as I know, neither of Harris' parents were citizens.
That’s irrelevant to the analysis of her citizenship under current jurisprudence - hence the issue with “anchor babies.”
That's why unconstitutional laws and clearly bastardized views of law and the Constitution must be challenged. Just because we've done it incorrectly for a long time doesn't mean we should keep doing it incorrectly.
So, the Constitution was purposefully bastardized to give anchor babies citizenship and to pretend they are natural born citizens, and we should just accept it and keep going along with it, because it was always done that way? By your logic, nothing unconstitutional should ever be challenged, because it's always been done that way.
Fuddy joins the chat.
It's on her birth certificate. Neither of her parents were citizens. She doesn't qualify for the current job that she has.
Your parents' citizenship has no bearing on your eligibility to be president.
What does the term "Natural born citizen" mean to you?
I think what's more important is what it means in the eyes of the court.
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
You are wrong. Educate yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=h9PxdDvgQks
Yeah, that video of one woman sharing her opinion is nice, but it's not what's recognized in the court of law
No one, besides us, would care if she was a citizen or not
That's how we got obama. No one cared about our Constitutional laws. They just wanted their "first".
If we disregard the Constitution for that "exception", then nothing in the Constitution is binding.
That clause was written in very specifically, for a specific reason. Citizenship matters. Its of utmost importance.
Not sure, but I guess we'll find out soon.
Another possibility is the military gives the Supreme Court the green light to announce they found the 2020 election fraudulent and award the presidency to DJT.
Then again, military events may transpire that cause the office commander in chief to be more important than that of the presidency... who knows, maybe the presidency will be left vacant for a while and DJT serves as CiC.
Be careful on that! I worry that a day or two before the "Joe Biden" term ends, the democrats will announce newly discovered information that proves someone cheated and that Trump was in fact the real 2020 winner and therefore is ineligible to server in 2024.
Never inaugurated.
Maybe that was by design by the democrats to say Trump never left office as Joe wasn't properly inaugurated and Trump was still holding his term? Therfore he forfeited his duties to Joe.
Fraud vitiates EVERYTHING— SCOTUS.
They're lying, cheating, baby-slaying genocidal democrats. This would definitely be one more item they could put on the resume when they arrive at hell.
Actually, I don't think Biden was either. He took the oath hours early while Trump was still POTUS.
Minutes early.
Guys this isn't actually a thing
What isn't? Yes "Biden" took the oath around 10 minutes early. He also had a gun salute reserved for foreign dignitaries funerals. A majority of National Guard turned their backs on the motorcade after the "inauguration".
And that means he's not president?
Seriously, take some time and really think about that. The national guard didn't watch the motorcade, and so four the last four years he's been sitting in the white house and acting like a president...for what?
An individual is constitutionally allowed to serve a maximum of 10 years as President. Trump could still serve another "official" term.
He can't be elected more than twice. First was 2016. We know they cheated and if they suddenly came with proof and admitted the fact - he would not be eligible to run in 2024. Personally, I'd assume the office and ask the Supreme Court. But, I'm getting the feeling we may have the military running the rest of Biden's term.
If the Supreme Court ruled that he won the election at the very end of his putative second term, his putative second would be viewed as taken from him. I do believe that Trump is CIC, but not President of the corporation, so yes, the military is in COGCON/devolution mode.
How would he be ineligible? If he only served one term then he has a whole other term to serve.
People with their hairbrained theories lol
Not possible because I think you can serve 2 terms plus 23 months ( might be 24 months) Obviously this is too cover a situation where someone becomes President during part of someone else's term, so they can complete party if that term plus the additional 2 terms they ordinarily could serve
It's not how long you can serve that I am referring to. It's that you can not be elected more than twice. Scenerio: Trump won 2016 and served his term. He and we think he won 2020. If he is suddenly declared the winner of 2020 by newly discovered evidence and admission by Democrats of "oops" just days before Joe's term ends in 2025 - Trump would be ineligible to serve 2025 - 2029 as he would have been elected 3 times. He could serve out the few days left of the term he was cheated out of but NOT the 3rd term.
To my knowledge K. Hariss was born in the states to Candian and Jamaican citizens, who were here on school visas.
There was a question of her eligibility to be President from a legal standpoint when she was chosen to be VP.
I'm not a law fag but I do know that question will be challenged, and a TRO may be issued giving Johnson the position of acting President until the courts can decide.
All of this is a moot point if they just hide Biden in a freezer for 6 months like they did for Justice Ginsberg.
Besides, this is all a distraction, so we stop looking at the alphabet agencies involvement in the attempted assassination of President Trump.
You are wrong... parents... mother india... father Jamaica. Foreign aid students... kameltoes brought up in Canada. Went to school there. Not American or black lol
But she was born in the U.S. making her an anchor baby/U.S. citizen by birth. Citizenship of her parents is irrelevant sadly. She definitely is not African-American as they like to claim when it suits their purpose.
"Natural born citizen". That's the requirement. At least ONE of your parents have to be a citizen to be considered "Natural born"
The requirement can be found in Art II Sec 1 clause 5 US Constitution.
This Constitutional law expert disagrees with you and explains the 14th amendment around the 7-minute mark, but I recommend watching the whole video for full context.
In fact, the video shows by articles within the 14th amendment that only citizenship of the Father counts towards their child's citizenship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=h9PxdDvgQks
Mother was from India, yes, but I thought she had Canadian citizenship, you may be correct, but I think that was why Harris was raised in Canada because of her mother's citizenship was Canadian even though she was of Indian descent.
I also stated that Kamala's Father had Jamaican citizenship
I never said Harris was American or black so, I'm not seeing where I was wrong.
Maybe you should reread my comment in totality.
Requires two citizen parents.
Not under the current legal regime - if you are born on American soil, you are a natural born citizen. That’s the only legal analysis that is relevant.
Been telling people this all week. we can justify all we want why she is not fit, but unless the current legal definition of a natural born citizen is clarified by the Supreme Court, she is eligible. Our constitution did not define “natural born citizen”. The most recent Supreme Court court case ruling in 1898 only gave two exceptions to someone being born in the United States, but not inheriting citizenship, and she does not meet either one of those definitions:
Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth.
Tactics. This is the actual info.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h9PxdDvgQks
How do we know she's right?
Sauce and context. Well respected.
We are not subjects, we are citizens. It’s in the blood, not the geography.
...k?
Copied from another comment:
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
Wong case granted citizenship. It didn’t make him a natural born citizen.
Just a citizen. And if your parents were not permanent residents, then not even a citizen. One of Trump’s fixes to law violations that has been going on for decades.
She’s wrong. Don’t shoot the messenger.
No shooting necessary. I have done a lot of research on this over the years. The enemy has improperly used the 14 th amendment against America for decades. I do believe this should be made very clear with legislation.
Not according to what I've read. Can you provide some source for this claim?
A person with one parent who is a US citizen can inherit citizenship, as far as I know. Two are not always required.
https://nl.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/child-family-matters/crba/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h9PxdDvgQks
This is the best one. Trump retweeted this from a different website.
Thanks, dude. I'll check it out.
Wow. Crap audio, excellent content.
Thank you.
The fact that she was born on American soil means she’s a natural born citizen - that’s the current interpretation. There won’t be any TRO or real legal challenge to it. Don’t shoot the messenger.
We all know she is an anchor baby. Someone born here is deemed a citizen - a bit embarrassing, but not illegal.
Crucial is birth certificate with American hospital on it. If not, she's not.
She's not eligible... this is a fake administration from beginning to end... enjoy the show. Boom
Totally agree with you. This is all part of the show. I believe we are finally coming to the end of this.
Where you are born does not matter. What matters is having two citizen parents at the time of birth.
This (seems to be) incorrect.
(EDIT: It looks like I have not understood. Discussion should continue, as opinions are divided, but the issue does indeed appear to clinched by having two citizen parents (or a father who was a citizen, in which case the mother may well also be a citizen under common law 'coverture') rather than where one is born. Leaving my original comment here, for the discussion, but I think I was incorrect.)
There are potentially several paths to becoming a "natural born citizen". The main one is being born in the United States and not requiring any other naturalization process to become a citizen.
Apparently, there is some uncertainty whether someone born outside of the US jurisdiction but of one or two American citizen parent(s) and is a citizen at birth qualifies as "natural born citizen".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen
In Harris' case, she needs the certificate that she was born on US soil (under US jurisdiction), because neither of her parents was a US citizen when she was born.
(also https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen)
WRONG…
There was no need for the US Constitution to define Natural-Born Citizen, because the authors of the 14th Amendment understood the term’s meaning was already well understood.
Like the term “ARMS” was well understood and self-evident for the authors of the 2nd Amendment, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN” was well understood and self-evident for the authors of the 14th Amendment.
That said, John Bingham — the lead author of the 14th Amendment — he still told everyone precisely how “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN” is to be understood while he discussed the term on the congressional floor. In other words, the “definition” came directly from the author of the 14th Amendment:
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680
HIGHLIGHTS:
John Bingham | A Matter of Allegiance
"To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth -- natural-born citizens. There is no such thing as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." [Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 37th Congress, 2nd Session]
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” [Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session]
“…OF PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY…”
This is a moot point. In reality, any federal court will view Harris to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be president because she was born on US soil.
Thanks for the reply.
That's very interesting, indeed, and I appreciate the sourcing, etc.
However, I think I disagree on one point:
There is a problem here, because although the authors of the amendment may well have 'understood' (meaning that they ascribed a certain defined meaning to it) the term or expression (although i do not know if "natural-born citizen" was an existing term at the time, like "arms" was in 1776), they are not alive today.
This is why the Supreme Court exists: to interpret and further define constitutional issues if and when they arise.
So, if Bingham et al intended for this to be the definition: "all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens" then it would seem the definition needs to be reinforced by the SC, because those words themselves are NOT in the constitution or the law (amendment).
The "arms" question to. Does the right to bear arms include any and all implementation usable for either defense or attack? Does the constitution guarantee a citizen's right to develop and posses nuclear weaponry, for example?
I'm asking this because HOW these terms are understood and implemented in the current and future times would seemingly need further definition. (I'm absolutely pro-2nd by the way, der. I'm just querying how to approach and understand the issues involved).
I can accept that Bingham et al intended "natural born citizen" to mean (as you have quoted above), BUT, it appears that has not been sufficiently defined in the modern era, and there is a need for the SC to adjudicate, in order to make it clear.
I suppose the issue has never really been challenged in terms of the modern era. It's noteworthy that if such a definition was upheld, then Obama would be ineligible regardless of whether his birth certificate was legit or not, because his father was Kenyan.
In any case, thanks for the excellent dig.
Essentially, in addition to saying “NO SPLIT ALLEGIANCES”, Bingham also stated, “NATURALIZED = ADOPTED”; Bingham never asserted “NATURALIZED = NATURAL-BORN.”
The term NATURAL-BORN could not be made more simple than it already was, and Congress fully understood the differences between the words Bingham utilized as he utilized them.
Furthermore, the evils of TYRANNY wasn’t an alien concept for the founders; they didn’t need to define ARMS any more than the authors of the 14th needed to define differences between the terms NATURAL-BORN and ADOPTED.
I mean, I would dare believe, “We the People” should be allowed to own any weapon a government is allowed to wield, due to the fact the government consists of (or SHOULD consist of) “We the People”, and I would dare believe the founders would agree with that, wholeheartedly.
In other words, ARMS are ARMS — whether the arms exist as/on guns, cannons, navy vessels, tanks, flamethrowers, rockets, jets, subs, spacecrafts, space lasers, para-gliders, chemical weapons, planet destroyers, etc. — any freedom-loving American should have the capacity to fortify their existence via any form of mutually assured destruction.
Furthermore, as crazy as the “mutually assured destruction” assertion may be, even with NUKES in the mix, I 100% believe America’s founders would feel the same way, because they knew crazy tyrants could only be matched with crazy offenses/defenses, so they knew how placing defined limits on what ARMS may or may not be could only serve as an act of infringement, an alienation of rights, a crime against any free law-abiding American.
I find myself to be quite in agreement with your points.
Regarding the issue of 'natural born citizen', this thread has been quite an education process for me.
Incorrect. Was defined in both the book the founders used as a reference and in a naturalization law.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h9PxdDvgQks
Yep.
I think this would need to be clarified by the SC. I listened to the lecture, and thought it made 100% common sense, particularly inheritance by birth (in the blood) vis citizenship conferred by human act, such as legislation or document, etc.
Very enlightening.
Rather amazed that the Kamala thing is not more widely understood.
There is one path to be a "natural born citizen" and multiple paths to be a "naturalized citizen" and they ARE NOT THE SAME! There is already a very long post discussing this already on here.
Don't be stingy. Share the link!
Are you saying, then, that if John Doe's father and mother are both US citizens legitimately and have resided in the US, but happen to travel to Japan on assignment and then John is born there, that he is NOT a natural born citizen?
Would he have to be naturalized?
Sorry but no. The founders were very clear in their papers. They specifically stated that only that generation could skip the natural born requirement because no one's parents were American since America was brand new. I had an excellent US History teacher in high school. She made us read a series of books written.
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
This is literal and completely unambiguous. There is exactly zero argument for her not being eligible. We need another path.
We don't need another path, she's very unpopular, that's enough to get trounced in a fraudulently free election.
If that is true then we are only wasting time looking like retards trying to twist a way that she is ineligible. The plain truth is that she is eligible to hold the office of President and that is not going to change. Just because we do not like a fact does not mean it is fake news.
I disagree - sorry.
Nobody gives a shit if you disagree, What matters is the literal text of the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This was determined in 1898. That is 126 years of legal precedent. Neither you, nor anyone else will ever successfully argue that she is ineligible.
The Kamala is ineligible rule seems to be an opinion statement based on interpretation of the constitution.
Considering Barak served, I'd say this opinion is moot.
I think he will be exposed along with her.
We have to realize that although we'll probably still be "The United States of America" when this is all over, we were apparently sold out as a nation back in 1871 (under the Organic Act). Therefore we are working on America 2.0 at this point, due to all the convoluted BS that has gone on since then, and sorting out the good from the bad while accounting for technological and other advancements that need to be accounted for. On the plus side of doing it this way, we can define president & vice president qualifications once and move the heavens on. Unless we'd all like to grapple with stupid arse phrases like "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is" for time immortal...
Not if Obama's eligibility is found to be fraudulent. Which it eventually will be.
Yes
Yes
I think you are forgetting a key part of the equation here and that is Clown World.
That scenario playing out is what I am anticipating.
Lol, I initially read that as, "If Kamala is unintelligible"🐸
Logically and legally, yes.
Unfortunately both seem to be lacking for many decades now...
Yep... good guy
Please have a case in the Supreme Court that shows anchor babies aren't US citizens. Then we can be done with this Kamala crap.
I saw an analysis of natural born citizen by some scholar a few years back. If someone remembers, this could your Pepperidge farm moment. It defined the meaning perfectly.
Is Mike Johnson a good guy or a bad guy?
Doesnt matter much,one member can force a vote to remove the speaker.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-of-the-house-ousted-motion-to-vacate-rcna64902
Then any American citizen can be voted in as speaker. Including those currently running.
Yep
Mmm
That might e bad
Kamala is ineligible to be ELECTED to the Office of the President.
But, would that allow for her as VP to take over, in the event the President is medically incapable, or dead?
Yes
Obama wasn’t eligible to be POTUS but they didn’t stop him.
That's the one question that has been bugging the shit out of me ever since Sunday.
Good luck trying to get that sorted out speedily. This would go to lower courts, then to SCOTUS. This would drag for 6 months.
Kamala might be an anchor baby, however she was born in the US and she IS eligible to be POTUS.....
US Constitution says 3 qualifications to be POTUS; 35 years old or older Natural Born Citizen - which is not defined by the constitution clearly. Lived in US for at least 14 years.
The CURRENT constitution is not valid - anything after 1871 is gone!
The real Kamala Iyer Harris - Jamaican Indian Caucasion person.......is no longer alive -
this is all a show people......get the popcorn and enjoy.
We need to focus on something other than Kamala is ineligible! The SC ruled on this already and it would take an act of Congress (literally) to change it. This is probably the reason Trump wants to do away with the "anchor baby" crap!
Yes
The Kenyan was illegitimate. It didn't matter because we rule by public opinion that is artificially created by MOSTLY bogus "people" on social media.