Harris, Haley, and Ramaswamy Cannot Be President

[mystery-ak]

Harris, Haley, and Ramaswamy Cannot Be President

by Don Fredrick, The Complete Obama Timeline, ©2023

(Aug. 29, 2023) — Kamala Harris, Nikki Haley, and Vivek Ramaswamy are not eligible to serve as president of the United States. Nor are Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Why? They are not “natural born citizens,” which is one of the presidential requirements outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Making that claim, of course, immediately prompts a response of, “Of course they are natural born citizens! What are you, a racist?” But those who are eager to ridicule and condemn such a statement of ineligibility are merely demonstrating their ignorance of the term natural born citizen. What is important, however, is not what television pundits (or “pundints,” as they often incorrectly refer to themselves) believe the term means, but what the Founding Fathers understood the term to mean when they decreed the following:
 
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
 
Probably close to 100 percent of Americans alive today believe the term natural born citizen simply means born in the United States of America. But that is not what the term meant to the authors of the U.S. Constitution.

more
https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/08/29/harris-haley-and-ramaswamy-cannot-be-president/

[Bigun]

John Jay (who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) then wrote George Washington and asked that all presidents be required to be natural born citizens. That term was understood at the time to mean born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents.

And I defy anyone to find any argument advanced about it for so long as there was a living member of the founding generation.

There are still a few of us around who understand it and WHY it says what it does.

[Fishrrman]

I'm with you on this, Bigun...!

[jmyrlefuller]

Well, folks, who didn't see the birthers coming from a mile away?

[jmyrlefuller]

Besides, we live in a country that can't even define the word "woman." What makes anyone think that there's going to be any success defining "natural born citizen?"

[The_Reader_David]

There's an argument about it because the whole Constitution presupposes the framework of the Common Law, and as Blackstone's commentary on the Common Law does not require both parents be subjects of the Crown for the child born to them within the Crown's domain to be a natural born subject, it is sensible to believe that "natural born citizen" is a republican analogue of the monarchist notion already existing within the Common Law, rather than a notion imported from the Swiss political theorist, Vattel, with his notion of "naturels", which does require the citizens be parents.

[corbe]

   Sure, but only one of them has won more cases before the Supreme Court than any other person in the World. 
   HE'LL HAVE STANDING! 

   I'll put my $$$ on him as to his arguing his interpretation of 'natural born citizen' before the USSC.

[libertybele]

Besides, we live in a country that can't even define the word "woman." What makes anyone think that there's going to be any success defining "natural born citizen?"

You make a very valid point and yes this country is definitely messed up and that's putting it mildly.

[libertybele]

   Sure, but only one of them has won more cases before the Supreme Court than any other person in the World. 
   HE'LL HAVE STANDING! 

   I'll put my $$$ on him as to his arguing his interpretation of 'natural born citizen' before the USSC.

Ditto!

[Bigun]

There's an argument about it because the whole Constitution presupposes the framework of the Common Law, and as Blackstone's commentary on the Common Law does not require both parents be subjects of the Crown for the child born to them within the Crown's domain to be a natural born subject, it is sensible to believe that "natural born citizen" is a republican analogue of the monarchist notion already existing within the Common Law, rather than a notion imported from the Swiss political theorist, Vattel, with his notion of "naturels", which does require the citizens be parents.

The founders were well aware of all that as well as the FACT that there would be no Royalty and thus no lines of assent and adopted Vattel as the best possible safeguard against a foreigner ever being allowed to become president. All explained by St. George Tucker himself. @The_Reader_David

[Kamaji]

[Bigun]

Besides, we live in a country that can't even define the word "woman." What makes anyone think that there's going to be any success defining "natural born citizen?"

We don't need to define it @jmyrlefuller as that has already been done at least three times that I'm aware of.

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.

[Timber Rattler]

More birther nonsense.  Sick and tired of it.