• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Kamala Does Not Qualify to be Vice President

jammer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
85
Location
, ,
Wong Kim Ark was held to be a natural born citizen by the SC and NEITHER one of his parents were citizens of the US. So you are wrong.
YES, AND I'LL BET THAT YOU VOTED FOR OBAMA AND NOW FOR BIDEN, IF BIDEN AND HARRIS ARE ELECTED (GOD FORBID ) THEN I HOPE THAT YOU GET EXACTLY WHAT YOU SO ELOQUENTLY DESERVE!
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Wow! The kiddie table is surely filling up faster than anticipated. Luckily for me, a chair unexpectedly opened up when one of the children went to the ground curled up in the fetal position and crying for the ghost of Grapeshot to save him.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Your toxic & unpredictable mentality towards forum members is becoming worse c&l...
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
353
Location
Planet Earth
What language are they using in that video? There are some english words in it but the accent is so bad, it is hard to tell.
Maybe THAT is the way c&l actually sounds ! Could it be that c&l recorded one of "his" family's gatherings?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,959
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
No one cares.

If you mean that the article never broached the subject, you are correct. "No one cares" is because such an argument is a loosing argument. As I pointed out, the courts have made it clear that the Eligibility Clause (“natural-born citizen”) is that any person defined as a citizen at birth (irrespective parental status) is, by common law (law of the soil), the Constitution (14th Amendment) or even ever-changing statutes, is eligible to the presidency.

So, for any attorney that would bring a lawsuit based on such a frivolous argument could find themselves sanctioned for such antics.

This is why "No one cares."
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
...some folks care...and very much many more should care...but the Supreme Court made the argument moot many many decades ago...typical...for example, two US citizens stationed in the Canal Zone had a child "on US soil", the base hospital, and they had to get special dispensation to get their child recognized as a US citizen because she was not born in the US of A...the USSD required the additional hoops to jump through...the salient question, what law has changed since then...
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
If you mean that the article never broached the subject, you are correct. "No one cares" is because such an argument is a loosing argument. As I pointed out, the courts have made it clear that the Eligibility Clause (“natural-born citizen”) is that any person defined as a citizen at birth (irrespective parental status) is, by common law (law of the soil), the Constitution (14th Amendment) or even ever-changing statutes, is eligible to the presidency.

So, for any attorney that would bring a lawsuit based on such a frivolous argument could find themselves sanctioned for such antics.

This is why "No one cares."

You are an idiot and what you say is pure gibberish and a lie! We ALREADY know that a “natural born citizen” is an eligibility requirement for the office. I said that in my first post. It comes straight from the Constitution. Tell us something we don’t already know! That is why your post is gibberish!


The courts have NEVER opined on what exactly that term means in relation to eligibility for the office. That is what this thread is about. But you apparently have nothing substantive to contribute other than a tautology (that’s right, look it up cause I know you don’t have a very extensive vocabulary). It seems that you never have an original thought either! That is why your post is a lie!


I have opined that Kamala is not eligible. I have stated my reasons. If you agree AND have something to add, then let us hear it. If you disagree with my analysis, then tell us EXACTLY why! Otherwise, stop posting your nonsense.


Finally, if you are a real litigation attorney, you understand that this case would NEVER lead to sanctions if it were brought by the Attorney General of the US. Of course, you are not a real attorney! You just do a poor job of playing one on the internet.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Yet another degrading, disrespectful commentary towards forum membership...shame actually.

a point of order tho...your original post lacked any substantive cites, per forum rules, to validate your commentary so guess it falls basically under the category of hypothetically rhetoric BS...

so i suppose your rambling fulfills some deep seated insecurities you have...
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
353
Location
Planet Earth
It is truly amazing that someone who has been a member for 9 years has only (at this time) 174 posts. Then you have to realize that so many of those have been garnered in the last few months. :rolleyes:
Is it possible that this person is one of those who has lost their jobs because of the lockdowns (etc.) and is using this forum to "vent" because they blame the current administration for their losses? o_O
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
At least the kiddie table is consistent. They seem to need the same amount of evidence to speculate about my personal affairs as they do to formulate their legal positions. I am still waiting for the evidence about how an arrest warrant equals the filing of charges.

Haters will always hate. And you can dream of achieving what I already have........ as you pick the cigarette butts out of the urinal at the local casino.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Nice to see your degrading commentary is still spewing derogatory crap towards this forum's august membership, especially during this impending holiday season.

says so much about your character...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,959
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Why Kamala Harris qualifies to be President or Vice President.

Citizenship under the 14th Amendment includes those born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens. This was clearly established over 100 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the landmark 1898 decision of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649), the Court held that a person born in San Francisco to Chinese parents (who, at the time, were not permitted to naturalize as U.S. citizens) nonetheless became a U.S. citizen at the time of his or her birth by virtue of the 14th Amendment. As the Court explained, “[t]o hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.” Wong affirmed dicta from Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875).

And anyone suggesting that the 14th Amendment’s phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is open to reinterpretation lacks any understanding of the courts rulings. The Supreme Court explained that this phrase simply meant that children born to foreign diplomats or hostile forces are not automatically U.S. citizens. The Court found that these few discrete exceptions to U.S. born citizenship are rooted in the Common Law, dating back centuries. The Common Law provided that all children born in the territory of the sovereign were citizens except for those born to foreign diplomats or hostile occupying forces, (law of the soil). In addition, at the time, many Native Americans born on U.S. soil were also excluded from U.S. citizenship because of their tribal affiliations. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 later granted full U.S. citizenship to the country’s indigenous peoples. See 8 U.S.C., Sec. 1401(b). The Supreme Court has subsequently affirmed the understanding that non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the 14th Amendment. See, e.g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211, 243 (1982).

Any country claiming that a natural-born citizen of the United States, because of the parentage, is a citizen of their country has no relevance when it comes to determining U.S. citizenship.

This issue has been resolved and this thread should be locked.
 

American Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
Its interesting that people confuse the distinction in the Constitution between a citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. The Constitution allows any "Citizen" to hold any office except the Executive Offices of President and Vice President and requires those who hold those two offices to be "Natural Born Citizens."

A person can be born a citizen or be naturalized as a citizen. A Natural Born Citizen holds a specified distinction in citizenship.

A subject is a person under the authority of the US government whether citizen or not.
 
Top