natural born citizen

admin

Administrator
Staff member
Facebook

=====================================

The comments here are good, moved to post #2


President Chester A. Arthur and the Birthers, 1880’s Style
J. Gordon Hylton (1852-2018)
Oct 12, 2009
https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2009/10/president-chester-a-arthur-and-the-birthers-1880%E2%80%99s-style/comment-page-1/

====================================

U.S. Senator Kamala Harris is NOT a “natural born Citizen” of USA – NOT Eligible to be President and CinC or VP
Sharon Rondeau
July 23, 2020
https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/07/23/u-s-senator-kamala-harris-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-usa-not-eligible-to-be-president-and-cinc-or-vp/

More on the site.

================

U. S. Senator Kamala Harris is not a United States citizen.
Demand her deportation immediately.
https://patriots4truth.org/2020/08/11/kamala-harris-is-not-a-united-states-citizen/
Other good articles.

The patriots4truth article claims has a birth certificate pic, claims to have certified copy, and add additional good analysis
From the comments, they point to this:
https://truthbits.blog/2020/08/12/is-kamala-harris-an-illegal-alien/
She is not eligible by the historic tests.
Who has the will and integrity to act?

================

Newsweek, surprisingly, has an article that takes this seriously.
Some Questions for Kamala Harris About Eligibility | Opinion
John C. Eastman , Profe
https://www.newsweek.com/some-questions-kamala-harris-about-eligibility-opinion-1524483|

==========================

https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/07/23/u-s-senator-kamala-harris-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-usa-not-eligible-to-be-president-and-cinc-or-vp/

=========================

Kamala Harris Not A Natural Born Citizen of USA To Constitutional Standards
https://en.calameo.com/books/00575514223f3ef088367

========================

Daily Caller - absurd article
https://dailycaller.com/2020/08/13/donald-trump-campaign-team-jenna-ellis-kamala-harris-parents-india-jamaica-birtherism-citizenship-obama/
My response:to the authors twitter:
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1293999192948518916?s=20
https://twitter.com/StevenAveryNY/status/1294001315383848961?s=20
 

admin

Administrator
Staff member
Minor v. Happersett - dicta

Pamela Barnett says:
October 10, 2011 at 6:29 pm

Minor v. Happersett (1875) SCOTUS defined what a NATURAL Born Citizen is. Born in the jurisdiction to U.S.to two U.S. citizen parents. Neither of Arthur’s parents were U.S. citizen until he was a teenager. He was only Britsh until his father was naturalized when he was a teenager.
Minor v. Happersett has never been overturned. Arthur and Obama may have both become citizens jus soli, (born) citizens, but were never and could never be NATURAL Born citizens of the U.S. Obama was born a Dual citizen under the British Nationality Act and may remain one to this day — the founders required sole allegiance to the country – this is common sense for a country’s survival and goes back to biblical times.

Pamela Barnett says:
October 11, 2011 at 1:30 am

Yes, you are correct that for 14th amendment citizenship (a born citizen) neither parent must be a citizen. However to be NATURAL Born Citizen both parents must be citizens according to Minor. Minoralso distinguishes between two types of citizen — born of citizen parents and one without citizen parents.
“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.”
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress...citizenship-obama-not-eligible/#comment-19034
No law, amendment, statute etc. is needed to declare a NATURAL Born Citizen because he could have no other citizenship. It’s what comes naturally under natural law.
http://unlawfulpresident.com/unrele...tural-born-citizen-chapter-released-for-free/
http://unlawfulpresident.com/unreleased-never-vetted-book-natural-born-citizen-chapter-released-for-free/

Peter Bennett says:
May 16, 2020 at 7:44 pm

The question was to Obama’s ability to be on the ballot, as his father was an alien, ostensibly making Obama ineligible to becoming President. There being nothing ascribing eligibility to become president conditional to becoming a candidate, the status of his father is irrelevant to his running for office, there being NO REQUIREMENTS to run for the office, only those to actually hold it, if elected. This point apparently the stumbling point to all the failed attempts for judicial questioning his presidential eligibility.
Obama’s claim to citizenship rests on the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, ‘all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens, of the US and state where residing. But this only mentions Naturalized and citizens. The only reference to natural born is by inferrence! Definitely not permitted by CJ john Marshall, in Marbury v Madison, 1803. “A thing not expressly so mentioned in a clause cannot be inferred to be there.” Naturally born is definitely not mentioned anywhere within the 14th Amendment. Your question on the ethics of misrepresenting the meaning of something would seem to be determined if intentional, or not. The actual responsibility rests on the listener to decide the accuracy of the claim, for himself. And depending on his finding, the ethics, also for himself. Going deeper into any impropriety is a matter of greater consequence and authority than to be found here.
But, I tend to think it a matter more of the intelligence or integrity of the person so claiming ‘a thing to be, or not.’
Peter Bennett says:
May 16, 2020 at 7:54 pm

This chancery statement would not seem to be in compliance with the Constitution , and thus irrelevant. The matter of natural born citizen being the implied criteria to be thus defined, incompletely in detail and in general overall.
Robert C. Laity says:
December 28, 2014 at 4:01 am

Neither Arthur or Obama were/are “Natural-Born Citizen”. An NBC is “One born IN a Country of Parents who are BOTH Citizens of said country themselves”. This remains current law and was affirmed in Minor v. Happersett. BTW, neither McCain, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Santorum or Schwarzenegger are NBCs either.

Mr. Davidson, those “aliens” must first naturalize as Americans before their children are born on US soil. Else, their children are not NBCs.

February 26, 2015 at 2:08 am

Mr. Threlkeld, it is an incontrovertible fact that a natural born citizen carries both jus soli (“of the soil”) in addition to 100% jus sanguinis “of the blood”. No one but a 100% American “born in the United States of Parents who are both Americans themselves” is eligible to be President. See: “There is NO ‘President’ Obama” by me.










===============================
Raymond Collier - 2010
It’s also interesting that the Democrats in 1916 were building a “Birther Case” on Charles Evans Hughes during the 1916 Presidential Election. According to the article that I ran across Charles Evans Hughes’ Father & Mother were both British subjects & NOT “Naturalized Citizens,” which would’ve made Charles Evans Hughes ineligible to be President IF he (Hughes) would’ve won the 1916 Presidential Election against President Woodrow Wilson! Breckenridge Long, an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School, wrote the article, entitled “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ within the Meaning of the Constitution?” Published in the “Chicago Legal News,” Vol. 146, p. 220 in 1916! The 1916 Election was a close election. Woodrow Wilson barely won the election! The Electoral vote count was extremely close, 277 to 254.
 

admin

Administrator
Staff member
4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"
Sharon Rondeau
On Sunday, October 18, 2009
 
Last edited:
Top