Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,848 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 540,342
Pageviews Today: 1,189,429Threads Today: 539Posts Today: 10,550
06:30 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

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
Re: Kamala Harris is Eligible VP and/or President
...


You retarded motherfucker.... the argument is that you are not a natural born citizen unless your parents were citizens.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8296838


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.
 Quoting: Lime Flavoured Redux


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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71611133


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.
 Quoting: Lime Flavoured Redux


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
Re: Kamala Harris is Eligible VP and/or President
I mean, we all hate the shit out of it, but that is the truth.

It is annoying that EVERYTHING is up for interpretation and litigation.

Focus on shitting on Biden, deal done.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76030728


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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71611133


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"?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76030728


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
Re: Kamala Harris is Eligible VP and/or President
They chose her for a reason and it wasn't her skin color or sex.
 Quoting: ~Jazz~


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
Re: Kamala Harris is Eligible VP and/or President
...


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.
 Quoting: Lime Flavoured Redux


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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71611133


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.
 Quoting: Lime Flavoured Redux


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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71611133


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
Re: Kamala Harris is Eligible VP and/or President
...


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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71611133


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.
 Quoting: Lime Flavoured Redux


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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71611133


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.
 Quoting: Lime Flavoured Redux


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
Re: Kamala Harris is Eligible VP and/or President
...


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.
 Quoting: Lime Flavoured Redux


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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71611133


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.
 Quoting: Lime Flavoured Redux


That merely discusses being a citizen - not a Natural Born Citizen.

Try again?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 71611133


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
08/14/2020 04:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Kamala Harris is Eligible VP and/or President
Funny how not a single republican said anything when Canadian-born Ted Cruz ran for president, but if it's a democrat, it really matters where people are born.

Hypocrites as usual
Lime Flavoured Redux

User ID: 72530328
United Kingdom
08/14/2020 09:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Kamala Harris is Eligible VP and/or President
Funny how not a single republican said anything when Canadian-born Ted Cruz ran for president, but if it's a democrat, it really matters where people are born.

Hypocrites as usual
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78477393


People did mention it, as they did with McCain.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 14389594
United States
08/14/2020 10:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Kamala Harris is Eligible VP and/or President
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.





GLP