"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.
Sounds like a lot of opinion being thrown around here. At any rate, good luck getting your opinion heard by anyone who makes any difference at all. She is on the ticket, and it is not going anywhere. Attacking her based on this opinion will only make us look like retards so I hope we can come up with more concrete stuff.
You aren't getting it. The entire paragraph I put there is from the Supreme Court Majority Opinion of the Wong Kim Ark Case.
In that opinion, the author referred to a Circuit Court statement. And then continued to comment on it. Read the full opinion if you like. You will find many many many references to other cases in it, including Minor v. Happersett. Justice Gray was using those prior cases as talking points to explain the full opinion of the majority of the Court.
I am not referring to a Circuit Court Case to show I am right. The Supreme Court used the Circuit Court Case as examples of why they came to the decision they did.
Minor v. Happersett talked about citizenship to a certain degree. But 23 years later, Wong Kim Ark took that and other cases to specifically, definitively, and explicitly define the term 'natural born citizen'. And that definition has stood for at least 126 years and shows no evidence that it is in danger of being altered.
I have told no lies in even a single of my responses because all I am doing to literally pointing to the exact text in the Supreme Court Opinion papers.
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.
LOL.
Again, just because you do not like a fact does not make it any less true. Your so-called acceptance of the premise or definition of allegiance is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the Supreme Court of the USA very clearly stated that a person born within the borders of the USA are literally and specifically natural born citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Period. Short of the Supreme Court taking that definition up again in a new case, or a Constitutional Amendment, this fact will not ever change.
The statement by Swayne is a reference made by Justice Horace Gray who was the author of the majority opinion of the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case. He was using that statement to make a point. What I quoted were Justice Gray's actual words.
US vs Wong Kim Ark was in 1898...23 years after Minor vs Happersett. And the fact that Minor vs Happersett was unanimous is irrelevant. Cases that are decided at 5-4 are just as solid law as unanimous ones.
In 1875 the court said a thing. And then in 1898 they clarified their statement on that thing. It has been established law ever since.
Now you are just desperately making shit up. News flash - it is OK to be wrong and just because you do not like a fact does not make it any less true.
Re-read the paragraph.
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.
Allegiance in this context means in the realm of and under the protection of. People 'born in the allegiance of the King of England' are born in his realm and under his protection. The same concept goes for the US as specifically stated in paragraph 23. So all that means is that anyone born in the realm of the US and under its protection are natural born 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Her 'medical source in DC'? Bullshit. This would mean she was being given facts by a medical professional who works on Air Force One. She is a wanna be attention seeker and nothing more. Everything she posts is reactive nonsense and she never provides evidence other than 'Trust me bro'. So tired of seeing people who are obviously just hangers on trying to be influencers claiming they have 'secret sources'.
How exactly does this egotistical bim get some upper echelon ultra secret double agent triple agent quadruple agent deep deep cover literal Q level access person to divulge what would absolutely be beyond Top Secret level clearance facts to her? That source being found out would mean getting locked in a room and they throw away the room.
Using her or any other of these faggots who try to look special as a source only makes us look like fucking retards.
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.
Anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This is a legal definition.
We should not waste our time trying to pursue this. There are other ways.
Fuck you and this bullshit. A family man with a wife and daughter who was a firefighter is dead. He literally shielded them from harm and died for it. Show some fucking respect.
And FYI your username is an anagram for "Islams passports quot" so does that mean you are some mouthpiece for Allah?
HHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
OK I actually looked at the three links posted and they really are a nothingburger.
The first one is from Snopes and basically says that the building was insured in July 2001 when a lease transaction took place. It was required to have insurance so nothing there. And all policies at the time had so-called terrorism coverage because it was considered to be so far from possible. But there was no specific clause called terrorism coverage or any specific exclusion of it either. Honestly I don't know why she included this link because it really goes against the idea of a conspiracy that was insured ahead of time.
The second one only talks of an investigation into these messages. That's it. There is literally no follow up at all. It is like saying the cops got a report that this guy was stealing from cars across town...and then nothing. Once again, not sure why this link is there because it doesn't really say much of anything.
The third one only says that a lot of Israelis are missing after the attack. Well I am sure a lot of Irish were too. Or Italian. Or anyone else of any descent who was in the area at the time. And if they got a message two hours in advance why are there so many of them missing? And for a third time I am at a loss as to why she included this link in her argument.
That's it. There are no other links posted.
And then what? You going to shoot someone? Guess how that will play out.