Poll: Vivek Ramaswamy Breaks into Double Digits in Republican Primary

[Maj. Bill Martin]

THAT is a HUGE load of Bovine Fecal Matter and you know it!

The 14th amendment was created by legislation and the debates surrounding it are recorded in the Congressional Globe.

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/14th-amendment.htm#:~:text=Passed%20by%20the%20Senate%20on,laws%2C%E2%80%9D%20extending%20the%20provisions%20of

And the Constitution itself was created by legislation passed by the Continental Congress.  Your point?

Like every other Amendment, and like the Constitution itself, the 14th had to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures as well.  That's the exact process for ratification identified in the Constitution itself, and there is no rational basis, legal, or historical basis to consider Amendments any less valid than the Constitution itself.

[Bigun]

Like every other Amendment, and like the Constitution itself, it had to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures as well.  That's the exact process for ratification identified in the Constitution itself, and there is no rational basis, legal, or historical basis to consider Amendments any less valid than the Constitution itself.

It is a legislative act later ratified by the states. The fact that it was later ratified does not make it any less a legislative act @Maj. Bill Martin

I won't get into the fact that it was ratified during reconstruction.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Trump and the Dems want us to believe the GOP Primary is already decided in favor of Tangerine Mussolini.

There is a potential war of ideas to be fought amongst various tiers of candidates:

Tier 0 - Donald Trump (the man to beat)
Tier 1 - Mini Trumps (DeSantis)
Tier 2 - Trump's B!tche$ (Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, Chris Christie)
Tier 3 - Miscellaneous / Others (Ramaswamy, Scott, Asa Hutchinson)

[jmyrlefuller]

Bzzzz! Wrong! I was born on U.S. soil of parents who were citizens when I was born so no legislation required. I am a Natural Born Citizen.

Oh, yeah? Under what law? Because if no law says you're a citizen, guess what? You're not a citizen. Sorry.

In the absence of law defining it, citizenship does not exist.

[Bigun]

Oh, yeah? Under what law? Because if no law says you're a citizen, guess what? You're not a citizen. Sorry.

In the absence of law defining it, citizenship does not exist.

Whatever you say Jimmy.

[DefiantMassRINO]

... what constitutes "natural born citizen"?

... a US State Department issued passport?
... a US Internal Revenue Service tax payer ID?
... a US Department of Health and Human Services Social Security Administration issued Social Security Number and ID Card?
... a US municipality-issued birth certificate?
... a US state-issued driver's license?
... a completed and submitted US Draft application card?
... what about those born via C-section?
... what about those conceived by in-vitro fertilization?
... wha about those carried and born to a surrogate mother?

I am not aware of any Title or Section of the US Code of Law that explicitly declares me to be a "natural born US citizen"?

Since Federal office elections are run by states, wouldn't it be to up each state to verifiy that each Federal candidate on its state ballot met the required Constiutional requirements to hold that Federal office?

[Kamaji]

So, since Mr. Ramaswamy is unlikely to actually get the GOP nomination, would he be willing to set up a test case for this NBC nonsense, by having a state refuse to put him on the ballot for that stated reason, and then he can sue the state to have his named added to the ballot on the basis that he meets the NBC criteria.

It's way past time for a test case to put this stupidity to bed one way or the other.

[Bigun]

So, since Mr. Ramaswamy is unlikely to actually get the GOP nomination, would he be willing to set up a test case for this NBC nonsense, by having a state refuse to put him on the ballot for that stated reason, and then he can sue the state to have his named added to the ballot on the basis that he meets the NBC criteria.

It's way past time for a test case to put this stupidity to bed one way or the other.

As I have explained here numerous times in the past, it is FAR from nonsense. In fact, it is hugely important to our future.

That being said, I'm fine with your suggestion and would again remind you that SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It is a legislative act later ratified by the states. The fact that it was later ratified does not make it any less a legislative act @Maj. Bill Martin

1) So was the Constitution itself.  The Continental Congress passed it, but it then had to be ratified by 3/4 of the states - the exact same process as all of the Amendments.  It was ratified on June 1, 1788, and effective March 4, 1789.

2)  A Joint Resolution (not a "law") passed by both houses of the First U.S. Congress on September 25, 1789 that proposed 12 new Amendments was sent to the States pursuant to the Constitution.  Ten of them were then quickly ratified by the States to become the Bill of Rights.

3.  A Joint Resolution passed by both houses of the 39th Congress on June 18, 1866, proposing a new Amendments was subsequently ratified by states to become the 14th Amendment. 

Your argument that the 14th Amendment is invalid because it was a "piece of legislation" makes zero sense.   That's the exact process  used to ratify not only the US Constitution itself, but also specified within the Constitution for all future Amendments, and was the same process used for all of our other Amendments, including the Bill of Rights.

I'm not sure how you came up with that argument, but your reasoning would invalidate every single one of our Constitution Amendments, including the entire Bill of Rights, as well as the Constitution itself.

I've read a lot of arguments against the idea that the 14th Amendment establishes who is a natural-born citizen, but this is the very first time I've ever seen a claim that the 14th Amendment itself is invalid because it was a "piece of legislation".   Every single Constitutional Amendment began literally that exact same way.

[sneakypete]

Trump and the Dems want us to believe the GOP Primary is already decided in favor of Tangerine Mussolini.

There is a potential war of ideas to be fought amongst various tiers of candidates:

Tier 0 - Donald Trump (the man to beat)
Tier 1 - Mini Trumps (DeSantis)
Tier 2 - Trump's B!tche$ (Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, Chris Christie)
Tier 3 - Miscellaneous / Others (Ramaswamy, Scott, Asa Hutchinson)

@DefiantMassRINO

So I guess this  means  you are voting for Biden?

[DefiantMassRINO]

So, it would be up to a lawsuit adjudicated by the Supreme Court to have final say for a lawsuit filed on behalf of a voter or a state Government?

In theory, a Massachusetts (or any other state's) voter or the Massachusetts ( or any other state's) state Government could challenge Ted Cruz's eligibility to be US President or in the Line of Succession to be US President?

In theory, a Texas voter or the Texas state Government could also challenge Kamila Harris' eligibility to be US President or in the Line of Succession to be US President?

I presume a state's voter or Government would have standing to make such a challenge based upon the potential harm done to that voter's or state's representation in the Electoral College that selects the US President.

[libertybele]

So, since Mr. Ramaswamy is unlikely to actually get the GOP nomination, would he be willing to set up a test case for this NBC nonsense, by having a state refuse to put him on the ballot for that stated reason, and then he can sue the state to have his named added to the ballot on the basis that he meets the NBC criteria.

It's way past time for a test case to put this stupidity to bed one way or the other.

IIRC correctly, Cruz had to 'qualify' (voted upon by election officials) in two states in order to get onto the ballot, because only 1 of his parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.  So, no this isn't nonsense nor stupidity @Kamaji.

[DefiantMassRINO]

@DefiantMassRINO

So I guess this  means  you are voting for Biden?

I'd like to hear from the Tier 3 candidates ... I know Trump's minions on the RNC will attempt to squelch the participation of Tier 1, 2, 3 candidates in televised debates based upon arbitrary fundraising goals ... it's a federated collection of state elections and state political parties.

Since the Primary and the Presidential elections are actually run by the states, I presume there is nothing preventing a state Government or state Party from holding its own debates, independent from the RNC's national debates.

The beauty of the Federalist system is that there really is no such thing as "one" national Federal election nor "one" national Federal political party governing body.  I'm sure the RNC and DNC would like us to believe otherwise.

The way to prevent Federal tyrrany is to have a strong Congress, strong state parties, and independent state elections for the selection of the Electoral College to select the President and Vice-President.

[jmyrlefuller]

Whatever you say Jimmy.

You didn't answer my question.

[DefiantMassRINO]

What Chapter/Section of US Code enumerates the qualifications of natural born citizenship?

Which section of which Article or Amendment provides the de jure definition of what it means to be a "natural born citizen"?

The lack of such a de jure section of US Code, US Constitution Article, or US Constitution Amendment has created the de facto precedent that a child born within the US is a US citizen.

Again ... show me ... quote the section of US Code, US Constitution Article, or US Constitution Amendment that clearly provides a de jure definition of "natural born citizen" that is not subject to change via Supreme Court precedent.

Supreme Court precedent is not law ... is in interpreted to be law until replaced by a superseding US Supreme Court precendent, a Constiutionally approved Federal law, or a Consitutionally approved Federal Amendment.

[Bigun]

You didn't answer my question.

Yes! I most assuredly did.

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,504623.msg2861613.html#msg2861613

[jmyrlefuller]

Yes! I most assuredly did.

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,504623.msg2861613.html#msg2861613

Again, what law says that?

[Hoodat]

Since Federal office elections are run by states, wouldn't it be to up each state to verifiy that each Federal candidate on its state ballot met the required Constiutional requirements to hold that Federal office?

Correctamundo.  If a candidate is left off the ballot, he can challenge it in court.  And if an unqualified candidate is placed on the ballot, the people can challenge it in court.

But in the latter case, don't expect the court to do anything about it if you wait until after the election to sue.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Legislative acts determine citizenship for all Americans.

There are two types of citizenship.  One is naturalized citizenship, granted by an act of Congressional law, and forever subject to it.

The other is natural citizenship, automatic at birth to those born of the soil and American citizens at the time of birth.  This citizenship is not dependent on Congressional law or subject to it.

Both types of citizenship are afforded the same rights and protections, except two:  *Naturalized citizenship is a "gift" bestowed by Congress, and what is given can theoretically be taken and ----  *Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States per the Constitution of the United States.

Whether it's the 14th Amendment or other acts of Congress.

The 14th Amendment did not change these two types of citizenship ---- it granted blanket cititizenship to former slaves.  It did not alter the Natural Born Citizenship requirement for the office of President of the United States or transfer natural born cititizenship to the jurisdiction of Congress.

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868.

Following the Civil War, Congress submitted to the states three amendments. A major provision of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” thereby granting citizenship to formerly enslaved People.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment

[Bigun]

There are two types of citizenship.  One is naturalized citizenship, granted by an act of Congressional law, and forever subject to it.

The other is natural citizenship, automatic at birth to those born of the soil and American citizens at the time of birth.  This citizenship is not dependent on Congressional law or subject to it.

Both types of citizenship are afforded the same rights and protections, except two:  *Naturalized citizenship is a "gift" bestowed by Congress, and what is given can theoretically be taken and ----  *Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States per the Constitution of the United States.

The 14th Amendment did not change these two types of citizenship ---- it granted blanket cititizenship to former slaves.  It did not alter the Natural Born Citizenship requirement for the office of President of the United States or transfer natural born cititizenship to the jurisdiction of Congress.

  Exactly correct on all points @Right_in_Virginia I sometimes tire of repeating myself on this matter and thank you for your clear and concise posting of facts.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Exactly correct on all points @Right_in_Virginia I sometimes tire of repeating myself on this matter and thank you for your clear and concise posting of facts.

.

I know the feeling well @Bigun  -----  And thank you for your reply.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

There are two types of citizenship.  One is naturalized citizenship, granted by an act of Congressional law, and forever subject to it.

The other is natural citizenship, automatic at birth to those born of the soil and American citizens at the time of birth.

Wrong.  The two types of citizenships are "citizen at birth" and "naturalized citizen -- one who becomes a citizen at some point after birth by a process of naturalization."  There is no third type of super-special citizen who was both born on U.S. soil and had two citizen parents.  And there isn't a single word in the Constitution that says otherwise.

The 14th Amendment did not change these two types of citizenship ---- it granted blanket citizenship to former slaves.

Not just for former slaves, however.  It granted birth citizenship to anyone born here as long as they were subject to our legal jurisdiction.

It did not alter the Natural Born Citizenship requirement for the office of President of the United States or transfer natural born cititizenship to the jurisdiction of Congress.

Well, it didn't alter the natural born citizen requirement in the sense that you still had to be a citizen at birth rather than one naturalized as an immigrant from somewhere else.  But it did -- for the first time -- establish a clear constitutional standard that -- with a very limited exception -- you were a citizen at birth if you were born here.

There was nothing in the Constitution as originally passed that prohibited Congress from going beyond that to expand the categories of people who might be considered citizens at birth, and the 14th Amendment didn't change that.  So you're correct it saying that no power was "transferred" to Congress by the 14th Amendment.

We know Congress has always had that power because Congress passed a law signed by Washington himself -- the Naturalization Act of 1790 -- that defined "natural born citizen", and there is no record of any objections or statements by anyone (and they were all a lot more familiar with what the Constitution meant when it was passed than we are) that this was beyond the power of Congress.

[Bigun]

Wrong.  The two types of citizenships are "citizen at birth" and "naturalized citizen -- one who becomes a citizen at some point after birth by a process of naturalization."  There is no third type of super-special citizen who was both born on U.S. soil and had two citizen parents.  And there isn't a single word in the Constitution that says otherwise.

The 14th Amendment did not change these two types of citizenship ---- it granted blanket citizenship to former slaves.

Not just for former slaves, however.  It granted birth citizenship to anyone born here as long as they were subject to our legal jurisdiction.

Well, it didn't alter the natural born citizen requirement in the sense that you still had to be a citizen at birth rather than one naturalized as an immigrant from somewhere else.  But it did -- for the first time -- establish a clear constitutional standard that -- with a very limited exception -- you were a citizen at birth if you were born here.

There was nothing in the Constitution as originally passed that prohibited Congress from going beyond that to expand the categories of people who might be considered citizens at birth, and the 14th Amendment didn't change that.  So you're correct it saying that no power was "transferred" to Congress by the 14th Amendment.

We know Congress has always had that power because Congress passed a law signed by Washington himself -- the Naturalization Act of 1790 -- that defined "natural born citizen", and there is no record of any objections or statements by anyone (and they were all a lot more familiar with what the Constitution meant when it was passed than we are) that this was beyond the power of Congress.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts! @Maj. Bill Martin

SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

"The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

"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, "

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

"(A)ll 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."

[Kamaji]

Wrong.  The two types of citizenships are "citizen at birth" and "naturalized citizen -- one who becomes a citizen at some point after birth by a process of naturalization."  There is no third type of super-special citizen who was both born on U.S. soil and had two citizen parents.  And there isn't a single word in the Constitution that says otherwise.

Not just for former slaves, however.  It granted birth citizenship to anyone born here as long as they were subject to our legal jurisdiction.

Well, it didn't alter the natural born citizen requirement in the sense that you still had to be a citizen at birth rather than one naturalized as an immigrant from somewhere else.  But it did -- for the first time -- establish a clear constitutional standard that -- with a very limited exception -- you were a citizen at birth if you were born here.

There was nothing in the Constitution as originally passed that prohibited Congress from going beyond that to expand the categories of people who might be considered citizens at birth, and the 14th Amendment didn't change that.  So you're correct it saying that no power was "transferred" to Congress by the 14th Amendment.

We know Congress has always had that power because Congress passed a law signed by Washington himself -- the Naturalization Act of 1790 -- that defined "natural born citizen", and there is no record of any objections or statements by anyone (and they were all a lot more familiar with what the Constitution meant when it was passed than we are) that this was beyond the power of Congress.

Interesting stuff.  Also interesting are the authorities and sources cited in the following Wikipedia article:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States)

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts! @Maj. Bill Martin

SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

"The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

"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, "

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

"(A)ll 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."

Before getting into these, I have a question.

Have you actually read those cases yourself, or are you just cutting and pasting what someone else isolated from those cases without having read the cases yourself?  Because while all of them are misleading to cite the way you have, one of them is ridiculously so, and actually cuts the opposite of the argument you are making.