anyone having properly researched this knows that Kamala and Bronco bummer are not natural-born. hopefully something soon will expose this any cause some normie jaws to drop
Note Eastman is on the white-hat team. He was at J6 and was Rudy's go-to guy to explain why everything Trump's people would do that day was fully legal. Before it all happened. Odd.
But of course Kamala has never been vice president due to not being NBC.
No one seems to grasp the definition of "natural born" citizen. It is a more stringent form of citizenship. Means your PARENTS were born in the USA. Making you a natural born citizen. Only place it gives you an advantage not enjoyed by every other citizen is if you want to run for VP or President. Then only "natural born" citizens are eligible. The founders wanted a decent cushion between the Presidency and any possibility a foreign country could slip someone in to hi Jack the country. Like say Britain, who they had just won the country from during the Revolution.
No one seems to grasp the definition of "natural born" citizen. It is a more stringent form of citizenship. Means your PARENTS were born in the USA. Making you a natural born citizen.
This is completely untrue. And if it were true, then Trump would not be a natural born citizen because his mother was born in Scotland. Try not to make shit up.
In fact, the citizenship or birth place of one or both parents is absolutely irrelevant in determining if a person is a natural born citizen. The only thing that is the determining factor is whether or not they were born inside the borders of the USA. If they were, they are by definition a natural born citizen.
Source: Supreme Court case US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), specifically paragraph 23 of the majority opinion written by Justice Horace Gray.
I think you're missing the point, which is, "natural born" citizen. It is a more stringent form of citizenship. Means your PARENTS were born in the USA. Wong Kim Ark was deemed a citizen, but not the more stringent form of citizenship. One of the three requirements of the Presidency (& VP).
"natural born" citizen. It is a more stringent form of citizenship. Means your PARENTS were born in the USA.
It very literally does not mean this at all. The definition actually specifically states that the citizenship of one's parents has exactly zero influence on your being a natural born citizen. If you have nay proof of that other than a strongly held opinion, I'd love to see it.
It goes much further than this. Her mother was intentionally trying to subvert U.S. law by various means to get Kamala "legal": https://kamalakancel.com/
Very interesting! It makes it very clear to those who have not studied the natural born citizen issue very much that natural born citizens cannot have parents subject to deportation!
Duh, 14th amendment does not apply to natural born citizen issue. Harris is ineligible. She may be a citizen but not natural born. See Minor vs Happersett (1875 SC) decision which establishes precedent as to definition of natural born citizen.
That’s not an accurate reading of Minor vs Happersett. In fact Justice Waite deliberately and explicitly chose not to establish that precedent in his ruling:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens…. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts [the disagreement about what makes a natural-born citizen]. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
That is, Minor was the child of citizens so the court could proceed without taking on the question of the children of non-citizens and that’s what they did.
You did not read far enough; the precedent and definition is further into the case where natural born is discussed as qualification to be POTUS. Nice try or Waite did ramble a bit.
I have read the case through to the end and I'm not seeing it. If you could quote the text that you are referencing, or at least point me to the relevant section of the opinion I would be grateful.
Here you go. . .these paragraphs are in the latter part of the decision but clearly define NBC. . .precedent by unanimous decision: She is not eligible. She might be a citizen; but not a natural born citiizen.
"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 Page 88 U. S. 168 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea." Source = Justia
That is the exact same section that I quoted, the part where Waite recognizes the open question and then explicitly does not address it as not relevant to this case.
"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." Two citizen parents = NBC
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their Page 88 U. S. 168 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." No doubts.
Good luck with that angle. Barry-O was born in Kenya but that didn't stop a massive coverup of his birth certificate that nobody saw. A certificate of live birth was shown to the public that was Photoshopped with a dozen layers over someone elses. It didn't stop him getting elected.
It will take a case at SCOTUS to deny her. Imagine we find out Joe is alive, but bedridden and unable to speak. Sausage neck removes him via the 25th amendment. Just as she is laughing historically getting ready to take the oath of office on the Satanic Bible, she is told that SCOTUS has ruled she is ineligible to be President of the United States of America. Mike Johnson would be next in line. That would be absolutely hilarious. I'm not the biggest Johnson fan. But the absolute insanity that would unfold with the Dems would make me smile.
FFS it has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1898. Literally. She is eligible. If you were born in the US, you are a naturally born citizen. Period. The citizenship of your parents is 100% irrelevant. Anyone who pursues this is wasting all of our time.
If only I had linked the decision in the comment that you replied to. Oh wait, I did.
But just in case you forgot how to click a link - The decision was US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Also Minor vs Happersett does not define citizenship. It only states that citizenship does not guarantee the right to vote. So it is irrelevant here.
The Wong Kim Ark case specifically defines citizenship regarding people born inside US borders. The opinion of the majority Justice Horace Gray in part states "The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens"
You cannot get much more explicit than that. We are wasting our efforts trying to pull this shit. She is unfortunately, eligible to be VP and/or President.
23 In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
Here you go. . .these paragraphs are in the latter part of the decision but clearly define NBC. . .precedent by unanimous decision: She is not eligible. She might be a citizen; but not a natural born citiizen.
"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
Page 88 U. S. 168
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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea." Source = Justia
You are referencing the case you cited. The subsequent case clarified the court's position on the matter. As another reference, here are two paragraphs taken from the majority's opinion in the 1898 case (emphasis mine):
23
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
26
That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the court of chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.
Tell me you aren't actually reading what I wrote without telling me you aren't actually reading what I wrote.
Read this. Directly from Paragraph 23 of the Majority Opinion:
all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens...We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States
It literally says exactly - natural born citizens.
This certainly would add some spice to the movie. What better way to have the eligibility argument than with the biggest birther voice from the Kenyan years?
The guy who photographed Obama's mama naked for his magazine company. For anyone who hasn't seen the photos, they should have cropped out her face. That was a homely nude.
I have thought that if Obama was actually born in Hawaii, the fake birth certificate was to hide the real daddy. For those who don't know, Hillary was the original birther during the primary. But you'll never see the news replay that video.
Is she a Manchurian candidate? What are the odds on such a coincidence? Why would they choose her when other useful idiots exist? Why run the risk of being disqualified?
IIRC this whole "anchor baby" bullshit comes from a bad ruling that has never been resolved by the Supreme court, just like Roe vs. Wade. Until we sus this, out the practice is effectively law in the same way abortion was before the Roe Vs. Wade ruling was tossed into the trash bin of history where it belongs.
This is possibly how they may slip in the next swap... remember Gen Flynn saying it would be like when they ousted Nixon? Whoever she picks for VP will be the real challenger.
anyone having properly researched this knows that Kamala and Bronco bummer are not natural-born. hopefully something soon will expose this any cause some normie jaws to drop
Note Eastman is on the white-hat team. He was at J6 and was Rudy's go-to guy to explain why everything Trump's people would do that day was fully legal. Before it all happened. Odd.
But of course Kamala has never been vice president due to not being NBC.
No one seems to grasp the definition of "natural born" citizen. It is a more stringent form of citizenship. Means your PARENTS were born in the USA. Making you a natural born citizen. Only place it gives you an advantage not enjoyed by every other citizen is if you want to run for VP or President. Then only "natural born" citizens are eligible. The founders wanted a decent cushion between the Presidency and any possibility a foreign country could slip someone in to hi Jack the country. Like say Britain, who they had just won the country from during the Revolution.
This is completely untrue. And if it were true, then Trump would not be a natural born citizen because his mother was born in Scotland. Try not to make shit up.
In fact, the citizenship or birth place of one or both parents is absolutely irrelevant in determining if a person is a natural born citizen. The only thing that is the determining factor is whether or not they were born inside the borders of the USA. If they were, they are by definition a natural born citizen.
Source: Supreme Court case US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), specifically paragraph 23 of the majority opinion written by Justice Horace Gray.
I think you're missing the point, which is, "natural born" citizen. It is a more stringent form of citizenship. Means your PARENTS were born in the USA. Wong Kim Ark was deemed a citizen, but not the more stringent form of citizenship. One of the three requirements of the Presidency (& VP).
It very literally does not mean this at all. The definition actually specifically states that the citizenship of one's parents has exactly zero influence on your being a natural born citizen. If you have nay proof of that other than a strongly held opinion, I'd love to see it.
It goes much further than this. Her mother was intentionally trying to subvert U.S. law by various means to get Kamala "legal": https://kamalakancel.com/
Very interesting! It makes it very clear to those who have not studied the natural born citizen issue very much that natural born citizens cannot have parents subject to deportation!
Well sure because the law has always deterred the democrats right?
Duh, 14th amendment does not apply to natural born citizen issue. Harris is ineligible. She may be a citizen but not natural born. See Minor vs Happersett (1875 SC) decision which establishes precedent as to definition of natural born citizen.
That’s not an accurate reading of Minor vs Happersett. In fact Justice Waite deliberately and explicitly chose not to establish that precedent in his ruling:
That is, Minor was the child of citizens so the court could proceed without taking on the question of the children of non-citizens and that’s what they did.
You did not read far enough; the precedent and definition is further into the case where natural born is discussed as qualification to be POTUS. Nice try or Waite did ramble a bit.
I have read the case through to the end and I'm not seeing it. If you could quote the text that you are referencing, or at least point me to the relevant section of the opinion I would be grateful.
Here you go. . .these paragraphs are in the latter part of the decision but clearly define NBC. . .precedent by unanimous decision: She is not eligible. She might be a citizen; but not a natural born citiizen.
"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 Page 88 U. S. 168 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea." Source = Justia
That is the exact same section that I quoted, the part where Waite recognizes the open question and then explicitly does not address it as not relevant to this case.
"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." Two citizen parents = NBC
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their Page 88 U. S. 168 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." No doubts.
Good luck with that angle. Barry-O was born in Kenya but that didn't stop a massive coverup of his birth certificate that nobody saw. A certificate of live birth was shown to the public that was Photoshopped with a dozen layers over someone elses. It didn't stop him getting elected.
It will take a case at SCOTUS to deny her. Imagine we find out Joe is alive, but bedridden and unable to speak. Sausage neck removes him via the 25th amendment. Just as she is laughing historically getting ready to take the oath of office on the Satanic Bible, she is told that SCOTUS has ruled she is ineligible to be President of the United States of America. Mike Johnson would be next in line. That would be absolutely hilarious. I'm not the biggest Johnson fan. But the absolute insanity that would unfold with the Dems would make me smile.
Wish some lawyer would take this up and go to court. Then the Supreme Court.
Unless it'd have no standing /s
FFS it has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1898. Literally. She is eligible. If you were born in the US, you are a naturally born citizen. Period. The citizenship of your parents is 100% irrelevant. Anyone who pursues this is wasting all of our time.
Really, what decision? It would be contradiction of Minor vs Happpersett (1875). Cite it; I’ll read it. Or not.
If only I had linked the decision in the comment that you replied to. Oh wait, I did.
But just in case you forgot how to click a link - The decision was US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Also Minor vs Happersett does not define citizenship. It only states that citizenship does not guarantee the right to vote. So it is irrelevant here.
The Wong Kim Ark case specifically defines citizenship regarding people born inside US borders. The opinion of the majority Justice Horace Gray in part states "The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens"
You cannot get much more explicit than that. We are wasting our efforts trying to pull this shit. She is unfortunately, eligible to be VP and/or President.
But where is that applied to the term "natural born citizen"? It seems like it only addresses citizenship in general...
In paragraph 23 of the court majority's opinion:
23 In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
Here you go. . .these paragraphs are in the latter part of the decision but clearly define NBC. . .precedent by unanimous decision: She is not eligible. She might be a citizen; but not a natural born citiizen.
"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 Page 88 U. S. 168 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea." Source = Justia
You are referencing the case you cited. The subsequent case clarified the court's position on the matter. As another reference, here are two paragraphs taken from the majority's opinion in the 1898 case (emphasis mine):
23 In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
26 That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the court of chancery of New York, and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.
Citizens. . .not Natural Born Citizens. There are different types of citizens.
Tell me you aren't actually reading what I wrote without telling me you aren't actually reading what I wrote.
Read this. Directly from Paragraph 23 of the Majority Opinion:
all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens...We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States
It literally says exactly - natural born citizens.
Well she has already been VP so this will stop nothing.
Research paid for by the Obama Foundation.
This certainly would add some spice to the movie. What better way to have the eligibility argument than with the biggest birther voice from the Kenyan years?
I wonder if that will be before or after he claims Kenyan citizenship?
The guy who photographed Obama's mama naked for his magazine company. For anyone who hasn't seen the photos, they should have cropped out her face. That was a homely nude.
I have thought that if Obama was actually born in Hawaii, the fake birth certificate was to hide the real daddy. For those who don't know, Hillary was the original birther during the primary. But you'll never see the news replay that video.
demonrats don’t follow the law.
If true, that would perfectly explain why 0bama will not endorse her.
Is she a Manchurian candidate? What are the odds on such a coincidence? Why would they choose her when other useful idiots exist? Why run the risk of being disqualified?
Well, since when do demonrats follow the law?
Only when it suits them.
If it weren't for double standards...
IIRC this whole "anchor baby" bullshit comes from a bad ruling that has never been resolved by the Supreme court, just like Roe vs. Wade. Until we sus this, out the practice is effectively law in the same way abortion was before the Roe Vs. Wade ruling was tossed into the trash bin of history where it belongs.
nah, she's an anchor baby. Just like the illegals that come here and drop a kid...they are "citizens".
Also….Citizenship by Descent in Jamaican law. https://congenjamaica-ny.org/requirements-for-citizenship-by-birth-adoption-descent/
I learned this in 5th grade american history.
What part of natural born citizen do people not get?
Well, they tried. BRING OUT HILLDOG!
It's ambitious, the USSC would have to rule on it.
Already did. Minor vs Happersett (1875).
thanks
Great explanation, ty!
This is possibly how they may slip in the next swap... remember Gen Flynn saying it would be like when they ousted Nixon? Whoever she picks for VP will be the real challenger.
The Dems are already attacking that question with the usual "thass racist!"