NFRA on the Natural Born Citizen Issue

[Elderberry]

The Post & Email by Joseph DeMaio 8/27/2024

Well, whatta ya know.  Yet another source – this time an established, tax-exempt IRS “527 Organization” rather than an individual human being – raises the issue of the likely compromised “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) bona fides of Kamala Devi Harris.  The National Federation of Republican Assemblies (“NFRA”) has brought the issue back into the public square with its 39-page “Platform and Policy Document” directly questioning Harris’s constitutional eligibility.

As a preliminary matter, the story of the NFRA Platform and Policy Document appears in the online version of “The Independent,” a left-leaning media outlet based in London…., hardly a “go-to” resource for gaining accurate information about the nbC issue under the U.S. Constitution. For example, The Independent article erroneously claims that, under the NFRA policy document, U.S. presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison would be disqualified.  Not so: the “Citizen-Grandfather” exception that the Framers included took care of that.

That said, the internet posting by the outlet “across the pond” of the NFRA document is timely. Specifically, the NFRA document asserts – at p. 37 by way of a “Resolution” included within the document – that at least three persons seeking the presidency were not nbC’s.  Two were Republicans – Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy – and one is now the Democrat Party’s official nominee, Kamala Harris. 

The foregoing aside, the NFRA document states – correctly – that an nbC “is defined as a person born on American soil of parents who are both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth.”  However, instead of sourcing that definition to § 212 of Book 1, Ch. 19 of The Law of Nations, by Emer de Vattel (“§ 212”) – the most likely origin of the definition – and corroborating that fact by citing only the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett, the NFRA document wanders.

That circumstance requires some detailed analysis, so grab your favorite caffeinated beverage and find a comfortable chair.

Ready?  Excellent.

The frolic and detour the NFRA document pursues takes the form of citing five Supreme Court cases other than the Minor case, some properly, others …, not so much.   The first one cited (properly) is The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814). There, Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring in the opinion of Associate Justice Bushrod Washington, quoted Emer de Vattel regarding the status of the subjects of one nation when present in another (Id. at 289):

“Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’” (Emphasis added)

More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/08/27/nfra-on-the-natural-born-citizen-issue/

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The idea that the Constitution - written by lawyers who themselves practiced English law -  would abandon sub silentio the English common law definition of "natural born" in favor of that of a Prussian whose name and work is mentioned nowhere is the Constitution is just weak as hell.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of pre-Independence English law and common law in interpreting the Constitution and early American law.

Fortunately, it's a dead issue and would be buried even deeper if it ever made it to SCOTUS.

[Bigun]

The idea that the Constitution - written by lawyers who themselves practiced English law -  would abandon sub silentio the English common law definition of "natural born" in favor of that of a Prussian whose name and work is mentioned nowhere is the Constitution is just weak as hell.

Fortunately, it's a dead issue and would be buried even deeper if it ever made it to SCOTUS.

BS! And you know it! English Common Law includes Royal lines of accention and the founders were well aware of the fact that it could not apply to U. S. presidents which is why they went with Vattel.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

BS! And you know it! English Common Law includes Royal lines of accention and the founders were well aware of the fact that it could not apply to U. S. presidents which is why they went with Vattel.

English law/common law interpretations are valid unless/until varied from expressly by codified law and subsequent common law decisions.   That why we have a President and not a King - because the Constitution expressly and in detail states that the Executive Authority is vested in a President, establishes the Congress, etc..  Nothing is implied or assumed.

In direct contrast, there is zero mention of DeVattel, his book, or even his definition of a natural born citizen.   Absent that, the easy default is contemporaneous English law, which was used to fill in all sorts of "gaps" in the Constitution.

Just as one tiny example, the 8th Amendment expressly bars "excessive bail.".  Yet, courts do have the right to deny bail altogether in some cases, which seems contradictory.  But the courts - including the Supreme Court - have held that at English Common Law, bail could be denied in cases where the individual was believed to be too dangerous.  Therefore, that exception was held to be understood as present in the 8th Amendment as well.

Feel free to think I don't know what I'm talking about.   But consider that not a single judge - regardless of whether that judge was appointed by a Democrat or Republican - agreed with your interpretation and barred Obama.  No one.

I'm far from alone on this, so your "and you know it!" Is simply ridiculous.  I "know" nothing of the sort.

[Bigun]

English law/common law interpretations are valid unless/until varied from expressly by codified law and subsequent common law decisions.   That why we have a President and not a King - because the Constitution expressly and in detail states that the Executive Authority is vested in a President, establishes the Congress, etc..  Nothing is applied or assumed.

In direct contrast, there is zero mention of DeVattel, his book, or even his definition of a natural born citizen.   Absent that, the easy default is contemporaneous English law, which was used to fill in all sorts of "gaps" in the Constitution.

Just as one tiny example, the 8th Amendment expressly bars "excessive bail.".  Yet, courts do have the right to deny bail altogether in some cases, which seems contradictory.  But the courts - including the Supreme Court - have held that at English Common Law, bail could be denied in cases where the individual was believed to be too dangerous.  Therefore, that exception was held to be understood as present in the 8th Amendment as well.

Feel free to think I don't know what I'm talking about.   But consider that not a single judge - regardless of whether that judge was appointed by a Democrat or Republican - agreed with your interpretation and barred Obama.  No one.

I'm far from alone on this, so your "and you know it!" Is simply ridiculous.  I "know" nothing of the sort.

Have you ever read the writings of St. George Tucker? You know! The undisputed authority on the subject for more than fifty years after the founding. You really should!  (There is a difference between a subject and a citizen.)

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.


And BTW: No judge ever heard an Obama eligibility case because of their artful "Standing" dodge.

[DefiantMassRINO]

At Kamala's birth, were Kamala and her mother in the United States when the doctor cut the umbilical cord?

 

English Common Law is systemically racist against the Irish.  I defer to Murphy's Law.

[Smokin Joe]

At Kamala's birth, were Kamala and her mother in the United States when the doctor cut the umbilical cord?

 

Visiting Saudis who returned home could claim their child was a Natural Born Citizen by that logic.
Neither of her parents were US citizens at the time of her birth. That's an anchor baby, requiring misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, not a Natural Born Citizen.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And BTW: No judge ever heard an Obama eligibility case because of their artful "Standing" dodge.

Well, that's as bogus an argument as the rest you've made.

Try reading Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678,684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) , or Allen v. Democratic Party of Arizona, AZ - 2012-03-07, for starters.  Both of those cases reached the merits of the NBC argument, and rejected it.

https://www.scribd.com/document/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

So what you claim never happened actually has.

[Smokin Joe]

Well, that's as bogus an argument as the rest you've made.

Try reading Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678,684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) , or Allen v. Democratic Party of Arizona, AZ - 2012-03-07, for starters.  Both of those cases reached the merits of the NBC argument, and rejected it.

https://www.scribd.com/document/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

So what you claim never happened actually has.

Do you know who Loretta Fuddy was?

[Bigun]

The court also noted that Supreme Court precedent supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen eligible for office.

Complete and utter pap! And again, NO EVIDENCE WAS LOOKED AT!

[Smokin Joe]

Complete and utter pap! And again, NO EVIDENCE WAS LOOKED AT!

There was no evidence that Barry was born here or to two citizen parents, and Republicans would not push the issue because McCain was born also outside the country. Obama claimed Kenya as his birthplace when running for Senate. The BC image was rubbish. The lady (Loretta Fuddy) who allegedly signed off on his bona fides was the only person who died of a planeload that went down between islands, even though a 70+ year old man swam to shore. It was claimed she died of a heart arrhythmia, even though she had never had an heart problems. She was a member of the SUBUD cult, which was founded in Indonesia, where Barry O spent his formative years attending a madrassas. None of this ever saw the light of day in court. His school records and all else were sealed, except the fake BC.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

There was no evidence that Barry was born here or to two citizen parents, and Republicans would not push the issue because McCain was born also outside the country. Obama claimed Kenya as his birthplace when running for Senate. The BC image was rubbish. The lady (Loretta Fuddy) who allegedly signed off on his bona fides was the only person who died of a planeload that went down between islands, even though a 70+ year old man swam to shore. It was claimed she died of a heart arrhythmia, even though she had never had an heart problems. She was a member of the SUBUD cult, which was founded in Indonesia, where Barry O spent his formative years attending a madrassas. None of this ever saw the light of day in court. His school records and all else were sealed, except the fake BC.

Evidence is not what a NT wants to see.  They rather call it 'a dead issue' and move on.

Exactly what the DOJ will try to do with any and all election fraud come November