The Briefing Room
General Category => Elections 2024 => Topic started by: Elderberry on January 30, 2023, 12:43:47 pm
-
The Post & Email by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr
Nikki Haley Is Not A Natural Born Citizen of USA To Constitutional Standards – Not Eligible To Be President
Both of Nikki Haley’s parents were not U.S. Citizens when Nikki was born. Nikki Haley was born to a Citizen of India father (minus one stool leg) and to a Citizen of India mother (minus the 2nd stool leg).
The normal path to becoming a naturalized U.S. Citizen takes five years. Nikki Haley was born in 1972 . Her father and mother emigrated from India to Canada and then to the USA in 1969. Thus there was not sufficient time for either of Nikki’s parents to become naturalized U.S. Citizens when Nikki was born in 1972. It is not known at this time to this writer if Nikki’s father and mother ever became naturalized U.S. Citizens. Nikki Haley is not being very transparent on this issue. Even if one or both of her parents did naturalize later after Nikki Haley was born, it would not change Nikki’s birth status. Given Nikki Haley’s year of birth in 1972, and her parents immigration year of 1969 to the USA, she was thus born in the USA to two foreign nationals and thus inherited their respective birth nation’s citizenship when she was born, in addition to being a basic Citizen by being born in the USA to aliens legally domiciled here. Thus Nikki Haley was born with citizenship and required national allegiance at birth to two countries. This is hardly what the founders and framers intended when they selected the “natural born Citizen” requirement for the person who would in the future be permitted to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military, once the founding generation was gone.
As per ‘Principles of Natural Law‘ in place at the time of the founding of our country and when the founding documents including the U.S. Constitution were written, a ‘natural born Citizen’ is one born in the country to parents who are both Citizens (born Citizens or naturalized Citizens) of that country when their child is born in the country. See ‘The Three Legged Stool Test‘ for a graphic presentation of this constitutional requirement as to who can be President and Commander in Chief or our military. See this Euler Diagram for a logic diagram presentation of this constitutional requirement.
Nikki Haley is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutional standards since both of her parents were foreign nationals who were NOT U.S. citizens when Nikki Haley was born in the USA. She is missing two legs of the three legs of the ‘natural born Citizen’ test. She is of course a basic “Citizen” at birth per the Wong Kim Ark legal decision by the U.S. Supreme Court of 1898 and the man-made positive naturalization law USC 1401, and as such she is eligible to be a Governor or a Member of Congress, but she is not a natural law “natural born Citizen” at birth, and thus is NOT eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military or the Vice President, per our U.S. Constitution. She inherited multiple national allegiances at birth due to her parents being foreign nationals living in the USA when she was born. Nikki Haley did not have sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to the USA and only the USA.
More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/01/30/nikki-haley-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-usa-to-constitutional-standards-not-eligible-to-be-president/ (https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/01/30/nikki-haley-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-usa-to-constitutional-standards-not-eligible-to-be-president/)
-
:facepalm2:
-
Good grief. Another one!!!! Don't they read the constitution? (Trick question.)
22222frying pan
-
Here is the simplified rule:
Anyone other than Donald J. Trump is not eligible to be President.
-
How about the GOP just boycott pioneer woke bitches like this in the first place.
I will actively do everything in my power to doom her chances.
-
For the love of all that is holy, drop this.
It is clear from precedent that the relevant interpretation for the "natural born citizen" clause is Blackstone, not Vattel. The notion is a republican analogue of Blackstone's "natural born subject", and thus anyone who from the moment of birth has been a U.S. citizen is a natural born citizen, Nikki Haley and Ted Cruz included.
The only reason Obama's place of birth mattered was that under citizenship law prevailing at the time of his birth, due to his mother's age, had he been born outside the U.S. he would not have been a natural born citizen (and for that matter, not a citizen at all, since he did not go through a naturalization process).
-
For the love of all that is holy, drop this.
It is clear from precedent that the relevant interpretation for the "natural born citizen" clause is Blackstone, not Vattel. The notion is a republican analogue of Blackstone's "natural born subject", and thus anyone who from the moment of birth has been a U.S. citizen is a natural born citizen, Nikki Haley and Ted Cruz included.
The only reason Obama's place of birth mattered was that under citizenship law prevailing at the time of his birth, due to his mother's age, had he been born outside the U.S. he would not have been a natural born citizen (and for that matter, not a citizen at all, since he did not go through a naturalization process).
:thumbsup:
-
For the love of all that is holy, drop this.
It is clear from precedent that the relevant interpretation for the "natural born citizen" clause is Blackstone, not Vattel. The notion is a republican analogue of Blackstone's "natural born subject", and thus anyone who from the moment of birth has been a U.S. citizen is a natural born citizen, Nikki Haley and Ted Cruz included.
Exactly. We always had, and still do have, a common law system. Every single one of the 13 original colonies based their legal system in the English common law, which means Blackstone.
The argument that we should instead assume that the ratifiers in each colony somehow just "knew" that Blackstone was being ditched in favor of some Swiss guy is ridiculous.
In any case, even under de Vattel, there was no distinction between being a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. So the 14th Amendment wipes out the entire argument anyway.
-
For the love of all that is holy, drop this.
It is clear from precedent that the relevant interpretation for the "natural born citizen" clause is Blackstone, not Vattel. The notion is a republican analogue of Blackstone's "natural born subject", and thus anyone who from the moment of birth has been a U.S. citizen is a natural born citizen, Nikki Haley and Ted Cruz included.
The only reason Obama's place of birth mattered was that under citizenship law prevailing at the time of his birth, due to his mother's age, had he been born outside the U.S. he would not have been a natural born citizen (and for that matter, not a citizen at all, since he did not go through a naturalization process).
No sir, I will not! Nor will I drop any other part of our constitution.
And BTW: The man who annotated Blackstone for our Constitution (St. George Tucker) strongly disagrees.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_1s18.html
-
For the love of all that is holy, drop this.
It is clear from precedent that the relevant interpretation for the "natural born citizen" clause is Blackstone, not Vattel. The notion is a republican analogue of Blackstone's "natural born subject", and thus anyone who from the moment of birth has been a U.S. citizen is a natural born citizen, Nikki Haley and Ted Cruz included.
The only reason Obama's place of birth mattered was that under citizenship law prevailing at the time of his birth, due to his mother's age, had he been born outside the U.S. he would not have been a natural born citizen (and for that matter, not a citizen at all, since he did not go through a naturalization process).
That's right.
-
Exactly. We always had, and still do have, a common law system. Every single one of the 13 original colonies based their legal system in the English common law, which means Blackstone.
The argument that we should instead assume that the ratifiers in each colony somehow just "knew" that Blackstone was being ditched in favor of some Swiss guy is ridiculous.
In any case, even under de Vattel, there was no distinction between being a citizen at birth and a natural born citizen. So the 14th Amendment wipes out the entire argument anyway.
:thumbsup:
-
Agreed with Bigun.
Haley is NOT a "natural born citizen".
Nor is kamala sutra, for that matter. But seems no one is talking about that.
Of course, obama wasn't, either. The case against him failed because no one in a position to make such a claim stick would pursue it.
HINT:
Ms Haley is goin' nowhere as a presidential candidate, but if she suddenly started to make hay -- watch the leftists and the commie-media jump on this issue, pronto!
-
For the love of all that is holy, drop this.
It is clear from precedent that the relevant interpretation for the "natural born citizen" clause is Blackstone, not Vattel. The notion is a republican analogue of Blackstone's "natural born subject", and thus anyone who from the moment of birth has been a U.S. citizen is a natural born citizen, Nikki Haley and Ted Cruz included.
The only reason Obama's place of birth mattered was that under citizenship law prevailing at the time of his birth, due to his mother's age, had he been born outside the U.S. he would not have been a natural born citizen (and for that matter, not a citizen at all, since he did not go through a naturalization process).
As I understand it, a person born on US soil is a citizen. Or of a US citizen in any country. I don't necessarily agree due to the large number of immigrants that come here and have babies. It is a misinterpretation of the 14th that should be revisited.
As far as Barry goes, he was most likely born on US soil. jmho BUT, he was adopted by an Indonesian step father conveying Indonesian citizenship. Hence, the sealed records.
So it seems that Haley was born here. Cruz was born in Canada to a US citizen. Much like McCain was born in Panama (?) but was still a citizen.
-
Barry Goldwater wasn't born in the US, but no one ever suggested that he was ineligible.
-
Barry Goldwater wasn't born in the US, but no one ever suggested that he was ineligible.
Barry Goldwater was born in Phoenix Arizonia (a U.S. Territory at the time) and BOTH of his parents were U. S. citizens at the time of his birth.
-
As I understand it, a person born on US soil is a citizen. Or of a US citizen in any country. I don't necessarily agree due to the large number of immigrants that come here and have babies. It is a misinterpretation of the 14th that should be revisited.
As far as Barry goes, he was most likely born on US soil. jmho BUT, he was adopted by an Indonesian step father conveying Indonesian citizenship. Hence, the sealed records.
So it seems that Haley was born here. Cruz was born in Canada to a US citizen. Much like McCain was born in Panama (?) but was still a citizen.
The crux of the matter boils down to whether they are born to US citizens, hence the term "Natural Born Citizen". Haley's parents were neither US citizens at the time of her birth.
If you use the 14th and being 'born here' as the standard, A Saudi who brought his wife here on a visit while pregnant could be the father of the next US President in 35 years.
With the jealous guarding against foreign influence in government, especially in those early days when the colonial aspirations of Europe might be well served by insinuating one merely born here into a position of power and influence on the fate of the newly formed Union, and with the War of 1812 yet to affirm our independence, the thought that such foreign interests should be prevented was sound, as it remains to this day.
No, Obama didn't qualify, either, imho. The problem is that so many (especially in Media) were willing to ignore that fact and suppress it when possible, does not make it right.
But, as we have seen since, the best interests of the American People, and the Republic, are definitely not foremost in the eyes of those who control media content.
Had the American people been given an honest and critical accounting of the situation I do not believe we'd be in the state the Republic is in, one which will persist until we start following our own Law.
-
Barry Goldwater was born in Phoenix Arizonia (a U.S. Territory at the time) and BOTH of his parents were U. S. citizens at the time of his birth.
Where were his parents born?
-
Where were his parents born?
Father; Los Angeles, California. Mother; Bowen Illinois.
-
Father; Los Angeles, California. Mother; Bowen Illinois.
Yeah, I figured dad was born in California. Point made. How much different this country would have turned out had Goldwater won in 1964. Instead, half a million of our best hope for the future got sent to Vietnam to fight a war they were not allowed to win.
-
The crux of the matter boils down to whether they are born to US citizens, hence the term "Natural Born Citizen". Haley's parents were neither US citizens at the time of her birth.
And I think the crux of the matter boils down to whether or not you, not your parents, were a citizen at birth, hence the term "natural born citizen." Now of course, there were different rules for citizenship in the 18th century than there were later, but there was no distinction drawn between being born a citizen, and being a natural born citizen even back then.
If you use the 14th and being 'born here' as the standard, A Saudi who brought his wife here on a visit while pregnant could be the father of the next US President in 35 years.
And yet under your standard, a child born to U.S. citizens in China, who never even visited the U.S., would be eligible to be President despite never having lived here. Is that really any better?
Perhaps the 14th Amendment wasn't wise, but that doesn't make it any less valid. And I think trying to argue that someone born a citizen isn't a natural born citizen ends up as pretzel logic.
-
Nikki Haley will need to show us a long-form birth certificate.
////00000////
Is someone delivered by Cesarean section "naturally born"?
Is some conceived using artificial means "naturally born"?
-
And I think the crux of the matter boils down to whether or not you, not your parents, were a citizen at birth, hence the term "natural born citizen." Now of course, there were different rules for citizenship in the 18th century than there were later, but there was no distinction drawn between being born a citizen, and being a natural born citizen even back then.
And yet under your standard, a child born to U.S. citizens in China, who never even visited the U.S., would be eligible to be President despite never having lived here. Is that really any better?
Perhaps the 14th Amendment wasn't wise, but that doesn't make it any less valid. And I think trying to argue that someone born a citizen isn't a natural born citizen ends up as pretzel logic.
BS! 100% USDA Choice and the plain words of the constitution itself bear witness.
"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;...
"
[/size]
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_1s18.html
-
Pompeo was on either Kudlow and or Levin this weekend, and he said Nikki's little Pence mini-coup is collaboratable with at least two others.
Hate for the little wench to get caught in another lie. /s
-
BS! 100% USDA Choice and the plain words of the constitution itself bear witness.
Neither the Constitution nor the long quote that you provided define what "natural born citizen" actually means, so I'm not sure how that backs up your argument.
My point is pretty basic. There are people who were citizens at birth, and then there are people who are naturalized as citizens. What evidence can you point me to showing that, in the period around 1789, a child could be considered a citizen at birth but not a natural born citizen? Anything from back then that discusses those two concepts and draws a distinction between them.
Because from everything I've read, that distinction didn't exist. Therefore, when the 14th Amendment was passed making you a citizen at birth if you were born here (and subject to the jurisdiction of), then you're a natural born citizen. Might be dumb, but its the law nonetheless.
-
And I think the crux of the matter boils down to whether or not you, not your parents, were a citizen at birth, hence the term "natural born citizen." Now of course, there were different rules for citizenship in the 18th century than there were later, but there was no distinction drawn between being born a citizen, and being a natural born citizen even back then.
And yet under your standard, a child born to U.S. citizens in China, who never even visited the U.S., would be eligible to be President despite never having lived here. Is that really any better?
Perhaps the 14th Amendment wasn't wise, but that doesn't make it any less valid. And I think trying to argue that someone born a citizen isn't a natural born citizen ends up as pretzel logic.
First off, it isn't my standard, it is the language of the Constitution.
Maybe you need to reread the Constitution. You must have missed the part of 14 years in residence.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
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.
The aim of that standard, obviously, was that whoever the POTUS was, they would have no split loyalty between the US and any other country. Of course, with the political climate of the day, they didn't foresee that the POTUS would perhaps have divided loyalty to some bunch of globalist pukes over our national sovereignty.
-
Neither the Constitution nor the long quote that you provided define what "natural born citizen" actually means, so I'm not sure how that backs up your argument.
My point is pretty basic. There are people who were citizens at birth, and then there are people who are naturalized as citizens. What evidence can you point me to showing that, in the period around 1789, a child could be considered a citizen at birth but not a natural born citizen? Anything from back then that discusses those two concepts and draws a distinction between them.
Because from everything I've read, that distinction didn't exist. Therefore, when the 14th Amendment was passed making you a citizen at birth if you were born here (and subject to the jurisdiction of), then you're a natural born citizen. Might be dumb, but its the law nonetheless.
What I can point you to is the FACT that the author of that long quote (St. George Tucker) is the very same St. George Tucker who produced BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: (five volumes) and I can find not one instance of his interpretation being disputed by any member of the founding generation. I'll just go with that.
And BTW: As you well know, the people who wrote the 14th never intended that it apply to anyone with any possible foreign allegiance. It was for former slaves alone.
-
@Bigun
What I can point you to is the FACT that the author of that long quote (St. George Tucker) is the very same St. George Tucker who produced BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: (five volumes) and I can find not one instance of his interpretation being disputed by any member of the founding generation. I'll just go with that.
But there was no interpretation of "natural born citizen" in that quote. All he did was say that it was important, but he never defined it. Seriously -- read it again and look for that definition. It just isn't there.
And BTW: As you well know, the people who wrote the 14th never intended that it apply to anyone with any possible foreign allegiance. It was for former slaves alone.[/size]
Wouldn't someone who was a former slave have potential foreign allegiance against the U.S.? After all, they might be rather pissed about the whole slavery thing. In any case, the Amendment says what it says. If they wanted to limit it to just slaves, they could have written it that way, But they didn't. So it applied to slaves, the children of Chinese coolies working on railroads (also intended in the legislative and ratification history), etc.. And every case from that time interpreted it as applying not just to slaves, but to everyone.
The argument you're making about the "intent" trumping the actual language cuts both ways. Because by that logic, the 14th Amendment was intended to protect former slaves against discrimination, and intended nothing about pro-black discrimination against whites. Same with the Civil Rights statutes, etc.. Black activists/leftists actually use the exact argument you're making here about the "intent" of the legislation -- that while it was intended to protect blacks against discrimination, it never was intended to bar affirmative action. The only reason affirmative action gets struck down is because of the plain language - not because of the perceived "intent" of those who wrote it.
-
@Bigun
But there was no interpretation of "natural born citizen" in that quote. All he did was say that it was important, but he never defined it. Seriously -- read it again and look for that definition. It just isn't there.
Wouldn't someone who was a former slave have potential foreign allegiance against the U.S.? After all, they might be rather pissed about the whole slavery thing. In any case, the Amendment says what it says. If they wanted to limit it to just slaves, they could have written it that way, But they didn't. So it applied to slaves, the children of Chinese coolies working on railroads (also intended in the legislative and ratification history), etc.. And every case from that time interpreted it as applying not just to slaves, but to everyone.
The argument you're making about the "intent" trumping the actual language cuts both ways. Because by that logic, the 14th Amendment was intended to protect former slaves against discrimination, and intended nothing about pro-black discrimination against whites. Same with the Civil Rights statutes, etc.. Black activists/leftists actually use the exact argument you're making here about the "intent" of the legislation -- that while it was intended to protect blacks against discrimination, it never was intended to bar affirmative action. The only reason affirmative action gets struck down is because of the plain language - not because of the perceived "intent" of those who wrote it.
If one reads the legislative history to the 14th Amendment, one realizes that it was not intended to simply be limited to former slaves, that the application to foreign persons was debated, and it was decided to only limit its application in the case of people who had a special relationship with a foreign sovereign - i.e., diplomats; otherwise, the drafters were well aware that it would apply to foreigners, and they were only concerned about that in the case of foreign diplomats and foreign envoys.
-
@Bigun
But there was no interpretation of "natural born citizen" in that quote. All he did was say that it was important, but he never defined it. Seriously -- read it again and look for that definition. It just isn't there.[\quote]
Apparently, YOU have a reading comprehension problem. @Maj. Bill Martin
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,...
can you not see that there is a distinction between mere citizenship and the natural born variety?
According to Madison's notes on the convention there were three copies of Vattel's The Law of Nations in the room at Philidelphia, one in the original French and two English translations. That's enough for me.
Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:
§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Do yourself a favor and READ THIS (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/)!
-
If one reads the legislative history to the 14th Amendment, one realizes that it was not intended to simply be limited to former slaves, that the application to foreign persons was debated, and it was decided to only limit its application in the case of people who had a special relationship with a foreign sovereign - i.e., diplomats; otherwise, the drafters were well aware that it would apply to foreigners, and they were only concerned about that in the case of foreign diplomats and foreign envoys.
Nope!
Senator Jacob Howard, who, in 1866 fully described the intent, focus, and limits of the first clause while addressing and introducing it to the 39th Congress for ratification:
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
-
The 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, The 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.
-
Nope!
Senator Jacob Howard, who, in 1866 fully described the intent, focus, and limits of the first clause while addressing and introducing it to the 39th Congress for ratification:
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
Thank you for proving my point. As I said, the legislative history to the 14th Amendment made it clear that Congress contemplated the 14th Amendment applying to everyone other than "the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, ...." And that includes other foreigners.
It was most definitely not limited to, and was not intended to be limited to, former slaves.
Again, thank you for proving my point.
-
Apparently, YOU have a reading comprehension problem. @Maj. Bill Martin
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,...
can you not see that there is a distinction between mere citizenship and the natural born variety?
Absolutely. The difference is whether or not you are a citizen at birth, or become a citizen through the process of naturalization. If you have to be naturalized, then you are not a natural born citizen, and therefore not eligible to be President.
According to Madison's notes on the convention there were three copies of Vattel's The Law of Nations in the room at Philidelphia, one in the original French and two English translations. That's enough for me.
Enough for what? To assume that everything de Vattel wrote was automatically incorporated into the U.S. Constitution?? They also had copies of Blackstone floating around, and probably some other legal treatises as well. When you're writing a brand new Constitution, you of course want to look at as many ideas as you can, and from there, pick and choose from each the ideas that appeal to you. There were tons of different ideas in each of those treatises, many of which contradicted each other. So why assume that they meant "natural born citizen" in the de Vattel sense rather than in the sense of English common law -- in which every single one of them had been raised?
You want to know why they likely had de Vattel? Because the federal Swiss canton system was the closest exemplar out there to the federal system they were looking to develop in the U.S., and de Vattel wrote extensively on federalism. Hell, during this period, there were exactly 13 cantons in the Swiss confederation. Even there, though, the Framers didn't adopt fully the Swiss canton system, and chose to create a stronger central government than the Swiss had. But they at least would have looked at what de Vattel wrote about it to see his arguments and ideas, even if they didn't adopt them.
Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:
§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Do yourself a favor and READ THIS (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/)!
[/size]
No, I don't have a reading comprehension problem. You provided an extensive quote from St. George Tucker, which is exactly the quote to which I was referring. He makes no mention of de Vattel's Law of Nations in that quote, and certainly not of de Vattel's version of "natural born citizen". None. Which kind of makes sense given that he's a Blackstone guy, and therefore would have defaulted to English Common law rather than any continental law. Tucker's quote -- given that it doesn't even mention de Vattel --- cannot possibly be used to claim he's endorsing de Vattel's meaning of "natural born" over the meaning it had in English Common Law.
The default rule in American legal jurisprudence right from the founding of the country was English common law, and that law applied unless superseded by legislative enactment. English common law cases from pre-Independence occasionally still are cited in American courts. So the idea that we should ditch the common law meaning of "natural born" just because there were also copies of a Swiss legal treatise also floating around makes no sense. Swiss law is not the default rule in the U.S., and never has been.
And in any case -- there was no distinctions drawn even in de Vattel between being a citizen at birth, and a "natural born" citizens. The concepts were identical back then, and remain so today.
-
Absolutely. The difference is whether or not you are a citizen at birth, or become a citizen through the process of naturalization. If you have to be naturalized, then you are not a natural born citizen, and therefore not eligible to be President.
No, I don't have a reading comprehension problem. You provided an extensive quote from St. George Tucker, which is exactly the quote to which I was referring. He makes no mention of de Vattel's Law of Nations in that quote, and certainly not of de Vattel's version of "natural born citizen". None. Which kind of makes sense given that he's a Blackstone guy, and therefore would have defaulted to English Common law rather than any continental law. Tucker's quote -- given that it doesn't even mention de Vattel --- cannot possibly be used to claim he's endorsing de Vattel's meaning of "natural born" over the meaning it had in English Common Law.
The default rule in American legal jurisprudence right from the founding of the country was English common law, and that law applied unless superseded by legislative enactment. English common law cases from pre-Independence occasionally still are cited in American courts. So the idea that we should ditch the common law meaning of "natural born" just because there were also copies of a Swiss legal treatise also floating around makes no sense. Swiss law is not the default rule in the U.S., and never has been.
And in any case -- there was no distinctions drawn even in de Vattel between being a citizen at birth, and a "natural born" citizens. The concepts were identical back then, and remain so today.
False! All of it! WRT Natural born citizenship.
You can believe that tripe if you wish but it's not so. The founders well knew that there was to be no throne in the USA much less lines of accension.
If one has need of ANY legislation ever passed that person is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen"
-
Thank you for proving my point. As I said, the legislative history to the 14th Amendment made it clear that Congress contemplated the 14th Amendment applying to everyone other than "the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, ...." And that includes other foreigners.
It was most definitely not limited to, and was not intended to be limited to, former slaves.
Again, thank you for proving my point.
Please continue in your self delusion!
-
Please continue in your self delusion!
Just reading plain, simple English language. That's all it takes. If you disbelieve the English in front of you, that's your problem; it certainly isn't the legislative history of the 14th Amendment.
-
Feel pretty good about this topic. I don't care if the bitch is a citizen or not. I just want her political aspirations destroyed.
-
@Bigun
False! All of it!
Really? Okay, I said this, which you just labeled as "False! All of it" in your post:
You provided an extensive quote from St. George Tucker, which is exactly the quote to which I was referring. He makes no mention of de Vattel's Law of Nations in that quote, and certainly not of de Vattel's version of "natural born citizen". None.
So if that is "False!", please point me to where in your Tucker quote he mentioned de Vattel's Law of Nations, and de Vattel's definition of "Natural born citizen". Here, I'll even help you out by copying the Tucker quote that you provided earlier in this thread.
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the contitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of our first magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of those calamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited. The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box.
Please explain how it is "False!" for me to say that de Vattel wasn't mentioned in that paragraph.
-
Feel pretty good about this topic. I don't care if the bitch is a citizen or not. I just want her political aspirations destroyed.
When our progeny wind up with a radical Muslim president because no one cares about this... Wait! That's already happened hasn't it?
IF she is a citizen at all, she is a naturalized citizen and thus not a natural born citizen as the constitution requires.
-
@Bigun
Really? Okay, I said this, which you just labeled as "False! All of it" in your post:
So if that is "False!", please point me to where in your Tucker quote he mentioned de Vattel's Law of Nations, and de Vattel's definition of "Natural born citizen". Here, I'll even help you out by copying the Tucker quote that you provided earlier in this thread.
Please explain how it is "False!" for me to say that de Vattel wasn't mentioned in that paragraph.
He doesn't mention it because EVERYONE KNEW what it was! Just like everyone knows what pizza is today. He didn't need to!
-
He doesn't mention it because EVERYONE KNEW what it was! Just like everyone knows what pizza is today. He didn't need to!
Oh. So now you're admitting that when I said that quote never mentioned de Vattel, that was actually 100% true. You're just making up an excuse for why he didn't mention it.
-
Oh. So now you're admitting that when I said that quote never mentioned de Vattel, that was actually 100% true. You're just making up an excuse for why he didn't mention it.
I admit to forgetting to add the amendment I added later.
-
When our progeny wind up with a radical Muslim president because no one cares about this... Wait! That's already happened hasn't it?
IF she is a citizen at all, she is a naturalized citizen and thus not a natural born citizen as the constitution requires.
You lost the point of my intent of that her prior pioneer woke record should preclude any consideration for anything within the GOP.
I'd prefer to see her ass sent back to India, and never come back. So bullocks with the NBC issue for her as far as I am concerned.
-
He doesn't mention it because EVERYONE KNEW what it was!
Saying that "everyone knew" something doesn't make it so.
And as I've said repeatedly, regardless of which definition of "natural born citizen" you believe should have applied in 1789, it remains 100% true that neither de Vattel nor English law (under which every single colony was governed, and in which every single American lawyer was trained) drew a distinction between being a "citizen at birth" and a "natural born citizen". The only distinction that they recognized was between someone who was a citizen at birth, a someone who was naturalized as a citizen at some point after they were born...wherever that happened to be.
Because of that, the plain language of the 14th Amendment makes the whole NBC debate a moot point today.
By the way, if you think the 14th Amendment really does apply only to former slaves, then every single one of us who is descended from immigrants who relied on the 14h Amendment and therefore were never naturalized are not citizens either because our ancestors never became citizens.
-
Saying that "everyone knew" something doesn't make it so.
And as I've said repeatedly, regardless of which definition of "natural born citizen" you believe should have applied in 1789, it remains 100% true that neither de Vattel nor English law (under which every single colony was governed, and in which every single American lawyer was trained) drew a distinction between being a "citizen at birth" and a "natural born citizen". The only distinction that they recognized was between someone who was a citizen at birth, a someone who was naturalized as a citizen at some point after they were born...wherever that happened to be.
Because of that, the plain language of the 14th Amendment makes the whole NBC debate a moot point today.
By the way, if you think the 14th Amendment really does apply only to former slaves, then every single one of us who is descended from immigrants who relied on the 14h Amendment and therefore were never naturalized are not citizens either because our ancestors never became citizens.
English common law says that citizenship follows the citizenship of fathers. As in the case of Barrack Husein Obama who was, at birth, a citizen of Kenya due to his (alleged) father's Kenya citizenship.
I'm tired of arguing. This country is FUBAR and will never be anything more than just another banana republic again.
-
(https://lh4.ggpht.com/_3S_yittWKj8/SSxduPNre7I/AAAAAAAAAts/Oz5mXCv8LfU/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/not_this_shit_again_thumb[2].jpg?imgmax=800)
-
The "natural born citizenship" issue has become a telling political "centrifuge".
It clearly separates those who really are "of the right", from the RINOs.
(In this case, "right in name only")...
-
The "natural born citizenship" issue has become a telling political "centrifuge".
It clearly separates those who really are "of the right", from the RINOs.
(In this case, "right in name only")...
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote "If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell, I will help them. It's my job."
It may very well be that the 14th Amendment's citizenship provision was poorly written, and a bad idea. But that doesn't make it any less the law of the land, and the text is absolutely clear. It's not the job of the Supreme Court to "fix" poorly written laws, or to re-interpret them so as to "better serve" the interests of the country.
-
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote "If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell, I will help them. It's my job."
It may very well be that the 14th Amendment's citizenship provision was poorly written, and a bad idea. But that doesn't make it any less the law of the land, and the text is absolutely clear. It's not the job of the Supreme Court to "fix" poorly written laws, or to re-interpret them so as to "better serve" the interests of the country.
:thumbsup:
-
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote "If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell, I will help them. It's my job."
It may very well be that the 14th Amendment's citizenship provision was poorly written, and a bad idea. But that doesn't make it any less the law of the land, and the text is absolutely clear. It's not the job of the Supreme Court to "fix" poorly written laws, or to re-interpret them so as to "better serve" the interests of the country.
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."
-
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."
Notice that both Minor and Wong Kim Ark are using the past tense to describe what was the law at the time the Constitution was enacted, which was no longer relevant after the passage of the 14th Amendment and its linking of birth citizenship to being born here without regard to parental citizenship.
-
Notice that both Minor and Wong Kim Ark are using the past tense to describe what was the law at the time the Constitution was enacted, which was no longer relevant after the passage of the 14th Amendment and its linking of birth citizenship to being born here without regard to parental citizenship.
You are entitled to your opinions, but no one is required to share them. I most assuredly do not.
-
:shrug:
-
Nope!
Senator Jacob Howard, who, in 1866 fully described the intent, focus, and limits of the first clause while addressing and introducing it to the 39th Congress for ratification:
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
By the senator's logic, those not born to citizens do not qualify. At the time of her birth, for example, NEITHER of Harris' parents were US Citizens, which makes her parents foreigners when she was born.
-
By the senator's logic, those not born to citizens do not qualify. At the time of her birth, for example, NEITHER of Harris' parents were US Citizens, which makes her parents foreigners when she was born.
:yowsa:
-
:yowsa:
Does anyone remember that DJT's mother wasn't a NBC either.? :whistle:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-38648877 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-38648877)
All but one of his children too. (via Invana and Melania)
-
Does anyone remember that DJT's mother wasn't a NBC either.? :whistle:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-38648877 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-38648877)
All but one of his children too. (via Invana and Melania)
Mr Trump's mother became a US citizen in 1942 and died in 2000, aged 88. She was a citizen when Trump was born.
-
Does anyone remember that DJT's mother wasn't a NBC either.? :whistle:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-38648877 (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-38648877)
Neither was his father, but both were citizens by the time Donald arrived and that nakes Donald golden. Both parents citizens and 14years residency.
-
Feel pretty good about this topic. I don't care if the bitch is a citizen or not. I just want her political aspirations destroyed.
Why cause she hates the stupid flag that the traitors used to kill fellow Americans?
-
Why cause she hates the stupid flag that the traitors used to kill fellow Americans?
You are a sick man @kevindavis007 Seek help!
-
Why cause she hates the stupid flag that the traitors used to kill fellow Americans?
You're as woke as the rest the dims you tend to dispute.
I hope someone pisses on your heritage too in the near future.