Author Topic: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday  (Read 5418 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48,301
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #25 on: October 18, 2024, 07:17:55 pm »
So answer the question I posed up thread. Clearly there is a difference between a mere Citizen and a Natural born Citizen. Otherwise there would be no need to distinguish between them as the founders plainly did. Perhaps you should heed your own advice.

A “citizen” is just that, anyone who has the status of citizen, and that includes people born elsewhere who were naturalized.  A “natural born citizen” is someone who was born on US soil to parents who were not, at the time foreign diplomats accredited to the U.S.   

Very easy.  Folks should stop overthinking it to force it to mean what they want it to mean for ulterior political motives.


Arnold Schwarzenegger is a citizen but not a natural born citizen.  Kamala Harris is both a citizen and a natural born citizen.  He cannot be president under the Constitution; she can. 


Just because she’s stupid as a box of rocks does not make her ineligible on the basis of citizenship.  Yall have to do the hard work of persuading fellow voters why she’s incompetent.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,263
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #26 on: October 18, 2024, 07:20:00 pm »
Probably.  I would be rather surprised if it's not.  Probably Standing, but who knows?

Same dodge they always use to avoid having to deal with something. As in Texas vs Pennsylvania.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,263
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2024, 07:25:06 pm »
A “citizen” is just that, anyone who has the status of citizen, and that includes people born elsewhere who were naturalized.  A “natural born citizen” is someone who was born on US soil to parents who were not, at the time foreign diplomats accredited to the U.S.

That is not the understanding of that term when the founder wrote it into the constitution and their understanding as been affirmed at least three times by SCOTUS itself.


"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,263
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #28 on: October 19, 2024, 10:05:06 am »
John F'n Kerry - who served in Vietnam you know - has a daughter who is married to the son of an Iranian Mullah.

Anybody OK with a child of theirs running for President of the United States 35 years from now?  I'm sure as hell not!

"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48,301
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #29 on: October 19, 2024, 10:19:50 am »
One can lead a horse to water ...

:shrug:

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,263
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #30 on: October 19, 2024, 10:27:57 am »
One can lead a horse to water ...

:shrug:

 :yowsa:  :thud:

You OK with the grandson of an Iranian Mullah potentially running for president down the road?
« Last Edit: October 19, 2024, 10:45:07 am by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48,301
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #31 on: October 19, 2024, 11:10:24 am »
:shrug:

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,263
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #32 on: October 19, 2024, 11:15:09 am »
:shrug:

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I have no idea! But I do know that I definitely do not want the grandson of an Iranian Mullah leading this country some day. How about you?
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48,301
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #33 on: October 19, 2024, 11:22:17 am »
I have no idea! But I do know that I definitely do not want the grandson of an Iranian Mullah leading this country some day. How about you?

I don't give a flying f**k about a person's past history - I care about the person him or her self - so I don't give a shit who a person's grandparents were.

Making that distinction is both irrational and blasphemous on several levels.  Firstly, it's blasphemous because it judges an individual on the basis of blood taint, which utterly ignores that individual's immortal soul in favor of guilt by association.  Secondly, it's irrational because, amongst other things, it assumes that if only the parents had naturalized first, before giving birth on U.S. soil to the grandchild, all of that blood taint would be magically washed away.

I prefer to judge each individual on his or her own merits and accomplishments, not on who his or her ancestors were.  But then, I guess that's just me and my minority viewpoint.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,263
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #34 on: October 19, 2024, 11:28:11 am »
I don't give a flying f**k about a person's past history - I care about the person him or her self - so I don't give a shit who a person's grandparents were.

Making that distinction is both irrational and blasphemous on several levels.  Firstly, it's blasphemous because it judges an individual on the basis of blood taint, which utterly ignores that individual's immortal soul in favor of guilt by association.  Secondly, it's irrational because, amongst other things, it assumes that if only the parents had naturalized first, before giving birth on U.S. soil to the grandchild, all of that blood taint would be magically washed away.

I prefer to judge each individual on his or her own merits and accomplishments, not on who his or her ancestors were.  But then, I guess that's just me and my minority viewpoint.

I don't give a flying F about what you don't give a flying f**K about! I do care greatly about enforcement of our Constitution! Every jot and tittle of it!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,888
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #35 on: October 19, 2024, 11:32:34 am »
I don't give a flying f**k about a person's past history - I care about the person him or her self - so I don't give a shit who a person's grandparents were.

Making that distinction is both irrational and blasphemous on several levels.  Firstly, it's blasphemous because it judges an individual on the basis of blood taint, which utterly ignores that individual's immortal soul in favor of guilt by association.  Secondly, it's irrational because, amongst other things, it assumes that if only the parents had naturalized first, before giving birth on U.S. soil to the grandchild, all of that blood taint would be magically washed away.

I prefer to judge each individual on his or her own merits and accomplishments, not on who his or her ancestors were.  But then, I guess that's just me and my minority viewpoint.
A noble thought but disconnected in reality and history.  This is the most important office held in the country, one our Founders explicitly dictated who is eligible in the Constitution.

I would have preferred Maggie Thatcher as President following Reagan, but everyone knows her first allegiance would not have been to the US but to the UK.
“You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.” Thomas Sowell

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48,301
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #36 on: October 19, 2024, 11:39:45 am »
I don't give a flying F about what you don't give a flying f**K about! I do care greatly about enforcement of oour Constitution! Every jot and tittle of it!

No, actually, you don't care about enforcing the Constitution, you care about finding some mostly irrelevant hook to "justify" the end-results you want to reach for other reasons.  Vattel wasn't elected, didn't write the Constitution, or any part of it, and wasn't expressly incorporated into any part of the Constitution by express or necessary implication.

Vattel is not determinative of what the terms of the Constitution mean, including the requirements for being president.  Vattel can be used as guidance to try and work out a principled distinction between the bare term "citizen" and the phrase "natural born citizen" and the simplest, and most straightforward, back in the day when there weren't even any simple immigration controls, was that the Founders were looking for some proxy, some indicia that an individual was more likely not a foreign mole, someone with foreign loyalties who was attempting to become president to subvert the U.S.  The indicia they arrived at was that if someone had been born in the U.S., and had grown up as always being an American, that such a person would have the requisite lack of foreign entangling loyalties.  Thus, a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution most comfortably fits with the distinction between an individual who was born here and an individual who was born elsewhere and subsequently immigrated to the U.S.  That this is also consistent with the express language of the 14th Amendment further buttresses the interpretation of the phrase "natural born citizen".

On that basis, the most reasonable reading of the requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen" is that the person have been an American since birth - that he or she have been born in the U.S. - and not merely naturalized into U.S. citizenship when he or she was already an adult (minor children cannot become naturalized citizens before they turn 18).

That is a sufficient distinction between the bare term "citizen" and the compound phrase "natural born citizen", it accomplishes the purposes the Founders appear to have had when they drafted the requirement, and is therefore the most likely interpretation of that phrase in the context of who can be citizen.

Trying to impose Vattel as the end-all-be-all of the meaning of the Constitution is more of an abuse of the Constitution than finding a workable, reasonable interpretation of the language is.

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48,301
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #37 on: October 19, 2024, 11:41:58 am »
A noble thought but disconnected in reality and history.  This is the most important office held in the country, one our Founders explicitly dictated who is eligible in the Constitution.

I would have preferred Maggie Thatcher as President following Reagan, but everyone knows her first allegiance would not have been to the US but to the UK.

No, actually, it's not.  It's wholly consistent with the entire idea of America and what America was and is about.  We measure an individual on each individual's own merits, not on the merits, or demerits, of their ancestors.  It's rather sad that you think otherwise.

Maybe we should revive bills of attainder?  Or allow for corruption of blood?

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,263
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #38 on: October 19, 2024, 11:45:19 am »
No, actually, you don't care about enforcing the Constitution, you care about finding some mostly irrelevant hook to "justify" the end-results you want to reach for other reasons.  Vattel wasn't elected, didn't write the Constitution, or any part of it, and wasn't expressly incorporated into any part of the Constitution by express or necessary implication.

Vattel is not determinative of what the terms of the Constitution mean, including the requirements for being president.  Vattel can be used as guidance to try and work out a principled distinction between the bare term "citizen" and the phrase "natural born citizen" and the simplest, and most straightforward, back in the day when there weren't even any simple immigration controls, was that the Founders were looking for some proxy, some indicia that an individual was more likely not a foreign mole, someone with foreign loyalties who was attempting to become president to subvert the U.S.  The indicia they arrived at was that if someone had been born in the U.S., and had grown up as always being an American, that such a person would have the requisite lack of foreign entangling loyalties.  Thus, a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution most comfortably fits with the distinction between an individual who was born here and an individual who was born elsewhere and subsequently immigrated to the U.S.  That this is also consistent with the express language of the 14th Amendment further buttresses the interpretation of the phrase "natural born citizen".

On that basis, the most reasonable reading of the requirement that the president be a "natural born citizen" is that the person have been an American since birth - that he or she have been born in the U.S. - and not merely naturalized into U.S. citizenship when he or she was already an adult (minor children cannot become naturalized citizens before they turn 18).

That is a sufficient distinction between the bare term "citizen" and the compound phrase "natural born citizen", it accomplishes the purposes the Founders appear to have had when they drafted the requirement, and is therefore the most likely interpretation of that phrase in the context of who can be citizen.

Trying to impose Vattel as the end-all-be-all of the meaning of the Constitution is more of an abuse of the Constitution than finding a workable, reasonable interpretation of the language is.

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."


I guess those people didn't know what they were talking about when they said those things.  **nononono*
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48,301
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #39 on: October 19, 2024, 11:50:18 am »
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."


I guess those people didn't know what they were talking about when they said those things.  **nononono*

Yup.  The courts have made frequent mistakes - make them all the time - so it doesn't surprise me in the least that they made mistakes there as well.  See Dobbs.

Vattel is not, and never was, the source of any provision in the Constitution, and attempting to force the Constitution into his concepts of the world is just as unconstitutional and illegal as any other Living Constitution nonsense from the worst liberal.

Glad to see you're in favor of the Living Constitution doctrine as well.

« Last Edit: October 19, 2024, 12:00:05 pm by Kamaji »

Offline libertybele

  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 64,998
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #40 on: October 19, 2024, 11:52:08 am »
A “citizen” is just that, anyone who has the status of citizen, and that includes people born elsewhere who were naturalized.  A “natural born citizen” is someone who was born on US soil to parents who were not, at the time foreign diplomats accredited to the U.S.   

Very easy.  Folks should stop overthinking it to force it to mean what they want it to mean for ulterior political motives.


Arnold Schwarzenegger is a citizen but not a natural born citizen.  Kamala Harris is both a citizen and a natural born citizen.  He cannot be president under the Constitution; she can. 


Just because she’s stupid as a box of rocks does not make her ineligible on the basis of citizenship.  Yall have to do the hard work of persuading fellow voters why she’s incompetent.

Neither of Blossom's parents were citizens or naturalized at the time of her birth.

So by your interpretation every Juan and Juanita or Yasmin and Muhammad who enters ILLEGALLY into the United States and births a baby on U.S. soil, grants that child citizenship.  I doubt that was the intent of our Founding Fathers.

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48,301
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #41 on: October 19, 2024, 11:54:29 am »
Neither of Blossom's parents were citizens or naturalized at the time of her birth.

So by your interpretation every Juan and Juanita or Yasmin and Muhammad who enters ILLEGALLY into the United States and births a baby on U.S. soil, grants that child citizenship.  I doubt that was the intent of our Founding Fathers.

Since there was no concept of illegal immigration in 1789, yes, that was exactly what they intended.  Geez, can you throw 'em any slower?

Offline libertybele

  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 64,998
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #42 on: October 19, 2024, 12:00:27 pm »
Since there was no concept of illegal immigration in 1789, yes, that was exactly what they intended.  Geez, can you throw 'em any slower?

Gee ... here's a thought .....legislative history makes no mention of illegal immigrants being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.


Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,263
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #43 on: October 19, 2024, 12:04:28 pm »
Quote
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.

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 316--25, 328--29



Those words were never disputed by any member of the founding generation as far as I can tell but, according to you, he didn't know what he was talking about either.


« Last Edit: October 19, 2024, 12:11:02 pm by Bigun »
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48,301
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #44 on: October 19, 2024, 12:10:39 pm »
Gee ... here's a thought .....legislative history makes no mention of illegal immigrants being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.



:facepalm2:

Here's a thought - there was no such thing as illegal immigration back in the day.

Can you pitch them any slower, and still get it across the plate?

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48,301
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #45 on: October 19, 2024, 12:11:33 pm »
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 316--25, 328--29

Those words were never disputed by any member of the founding generation as far as I can tell but, according to you, he didn't know what he was talking about either.




Yup, so all it takes is a person who was born in the U.S. and therefore became a U.S. citizen at birth.  That is a natural born citizen.


Online Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,606
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #46 on: October 19, 2024, 12:13:01 pm »
Navitivists freaked when a black man got elected.  They are losing their stuff at the prospect of a woman of mixed Indian-Jamaican ancestry becoming President.  Wait until someone of Mexican descent becomes President.

America not an exclusive country club for rich WASP's and Knickerbockers.

Are nativists more worried about Indian-Jamaican Kamala becoming President, or her Jewish husband becoming the First Gentleman?

Dude, has  someone taken over your screen name? Your posts are all over the map.
The Republic is lost.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 62,019
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #47 on: October 19, 2024, 12:15:08 pm »
Dude, has  someone taken over your screen name? Your posts are all over the map.

That is nothing new, says an Admin....
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline libertybele

  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 64,998
  • Gender: Female
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #48 on: October 19, 2024, 12:17:14 pm »
:facepalm2:

Here's a thought - there was no such thing as illegal immigration back in the day.

Can you pitch them any slower, and still get it across the plate?

Duh ... obviously .... the keyword is "jurisdiction"  and that is a point of contention.

Smugness and arrogance....you gotta love it right?   :laugh:  That's ok ... you are the one with the law degree IIRC.

« Last Edit: October 19, 2024, 12:19:15 pm by libertybele »

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48,301
Re: Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday
« Reply #49 on: October 19, 2024, 12:18:08 pm »
Duh ... obviously .... the keyword is "jurisdiction"  and that is a point of contention.

Smugness and arrogance....you gotta love it right?   :laugh:



Dude - so to speak - do you even know what the term means?  Because from your posts, it's pretty obvious that you don't.