Kamala Harris is Eligible VP and/or President | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 71611133 United States 08/14/2020 03:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8296838 You retarded motherfucker.... the argument is that you are not a natural born citizen unless your parents were citizens. Yeah, but unless and until a court actually says that's the definition, which they haven't done yet, the current interpretation applies. Which seems to be mostly based on Wong Kim Ark, which said that you were a citizen from birth if you're born in the US, regardless of your parents. Is it possible a court would agree with you if Trump sued? Maybe, but until they do the current precedent is that she is eligible. You need to read Wong Kim Ark closer: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett: 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. To me that line, in isolation, is inclusive rather than exclusive. It doesn't say that no one else can be considered a natural born citizen, just that a person in that situation always is. LOL are you serious? It lays out specifically what a Natural Born Citizen is. That is the same definition that Vattel used in Law of Nations. It is also what John Jay advocated in a letter to George Washington and John Jay's terminology was then used in the Constitution. Now, you find me a contemporary source with an alternate definition the Founding Fathers would have been familiar with and that was influential in drafting the Constitution and you can start to make an argument. Until then 'durr hurr to me that is inclusive not exclusive there might be another definition somewhere' is not a convincing argument. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 71611133 United States 08/14/2020 03:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I mean, we all hate the shit out of it, but that is the truth. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76030728 It is annoying that EVERYTHING is up for interpretation and litigation. Focus on shitting on Biden, deal done. We all know that TRUMP/Russia collusion and the TRUMP calling Nazis 'very fine people' are BS but the DemoKKKrats are still using them. We can do more than one thing at a time. Yes, we can. So why play by the DEM strategy? Ignore that fucking dried up twat and focus on "Can't find my dick, Biden"? Because in this case the very eligibility of somebody to be VP or POTUS is a little more important to the future of the country than 'Gosh, look at how old Biden is'. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 66594553 United States 08/14/2020 03:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | They chose her many years ago because of her skin color and sex, and as well as her willingness to hurt innocent people by using excessive military style police force. That is a fact. I watched her ascendancy in Cali. I warned GLP in 2011 that she is a snake and to watch out for her. Well here she is, la de da. I haven't investigated her eligibility, but her bio reads like she grew up in a variety of let's hate America, and take it down from the inside, camps, somewhat like her old friend Barack. She is vermin. Honestly, her willingness to use brute force against Americans likely exceeds Obama's by a great amount. She is actually scary. Barack was a tool. Harris is a tool that enjoys it. |
Lime Flavoured Redux
User ID: 5489224 United Kingdom 08/14/2020 03:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Lime Flavoured Redux Yeah, but unless and until a court actually says that's the definition, which they haven't done yet, the current interpretation applies. Which seems to be mostly based on Wong Kim Ark, which said that you were a citizen from birth if you're born in the US, regardless of your parents. Is it possible a court would agree with you if Trump sued? Maybe, but until they do the current precedent is that she is eligible. You need to read Wong Kim Ark closer: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett: 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. To me that line, in isolation, is inclusive rather than exclusive. It doesn't say that no one else can be considered a natural born citizen, just that a person in that situation always is. LOL are you serious? It lays out specifically what a Natural Born Citizen is. That is the same definition that Vattel used in Law of Nations. It is also what John Jay advocated in a letter to George Washington and John Jay's terminology was then used in the Constitution. Now, you find me a contemporary source with an alternate definition the Founding Fathers would have been familiar with and that was influential in drafting the Constitution and you can start to make an argument. Until then 'durr hurr to me that is inclusive not exclusive there might be another definition somewhere' is not a convincing argument. From the Wikipedia article on that case: "The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth." That seems to support the inclusive over exclusive thing, and that they didnt actually intend to make any wider ruling on the definition in a case about voting rights of someone who was, clearly, a citizen. I'm not saying it isn't a potential argument, just that no court has actually used it to throw a candidate off the ballot. Could they? Absolutely. Have they? Not so far, from what I can tell. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 71611133 United States 08/14/2020 04:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71611133 You need to read Wong Kim Ark closer: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett: 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. To me that line, in isolation, is inclusive rather than exclusive. It doesn't say that no one else can be considered a natural born citizen, just that a person in that situation always is. LOL are you serious? It lays out specifically what a Natural Born Citizen is. That is the same definition that Vattel used in Law of Nations. It is also what John Jay advocated in a letter to George Washington and John Jay's terminology was then used in the Constitution. Now, you find me a contemporary source with an alternate definition the Founding Fathers would have been familiar with and that was influential in drafting the Constitution and you can start to make an argument. Until then 'durr hurr to me that is inclusive not exclusive there might be another definition somewhere' is not a convincing argument. From the Wikipedia article on that case: "The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth." That seems to support the inclusive over exclusive thing, and that they didnt actually intend to make any wider ruling on the definition in a case about voting rights of someone who was, clearly, a citizen. I'm not saying it isn't a potential argument, just that no court has actually used it to throw a candidate off the ballot. Could they? Absolutely. Have they? Not so far, from what I can tell. That merely discusses being a citizen - not a Natural Born Citizen. Try again? |
Lime Flavoured Redux
User ID: 5489224 United Kingdom 08/14/2020 04:10 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Lime Flavoured Redux To me that line, in isolation, is inclusive rather than exclusive. It doesn't say that no one else can be considered a natural born citizen, just that a person in that situation always is. LOL are you serious? It lays out specifically what a Natural Born Citizen is. That is the same definition that Vattel used in Law of Nations. It is also what John Jay advocated in a letter to George Washington and John Jay's terminology was then used in the Constitution. Now, you find me a contemporary source with an alternate definition the Founding Fathers would have been familiar with and that was influential in drafting the Constitution and you can start to make an argument. Until then 'durr hurr to me that is inclusive not exclusive there might be another definition somewhere' is not a convincing argument. From the Wikipedia article on that case: "The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth." That seems to support the inclusive over exclusive thing, and that they didnt actually intend to make any wider ruling on the definition in a case about voting rights of someone who was, clearly, a citizen. I'm not saying it isn't a potential argument, just that no court has actually used it to throw a candidate off the ballot. Could they? Absolutely. Have they? Not so far, from what I can tell. That merely discusses being a citizen - not a Natural Born Citizen. Try again? Like I said, I'm not saying its not a potential argument, just that no court has ever explicitly ruled that the definition given applies to the Presidency. If you think that it should then get someone with standing (realistically it would have to be Trump or another candidate, or a state election official) to sue. One of the best things about common law is that everything is arguable if you have standing. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78477393 Belgium 08/14/2020 04:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Lime Flavoured Redux
User ID: 72530328 United Kingdom 08/14/2020 09:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 14389594 United States 08/14/2020 10:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You are factually incorrect. She is not a natural born citizen. I realize you can find thousands of sources that say otherwise with ease, but that has no bearing on the fact that the term in question was well understood and defined at the time and no amendment to the Constitution has change the requirement or redefined the term. Her parents were not citizens at the time of her birth, therefore she is not a natural born citizen. This is legal and historical fact. Is is going to mean anything in our post Constitutional society, no. That is still no reason to spread falsehoods and lies. |