The debate... Trump and Harris

[Taken]

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Based on the first sentence of Section 1, the Court has held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.1 The requirement that a person be subject to the jurisdiction thereof, however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation,2 or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.3 In addition, the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas has generally been held by the lower courts to be determined by the citizenship of the parents.4 Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States.5

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-1-2/ALDE_00000812/

In Afroyim v. Rusk,1 a divided Court extended the force of this first sentence beyond prior holdings, ruling that it withdrew from the Government of the United States the power to expatriate United States citizens against their will for any reason. [T]he Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other government unit.2 In a subsequent decision, however, the Court held that persons who were statutorily naturalized by being born abroad of at least one American parent could not claim the protection of the first sentence of Section 1 and that Congress could therefore impose a reasonable and non-arbitrary condition subsequent upon their continued retention of United States citizenship.3 Between these two decisions is a tension that should call forth further litigation efforts to explore the meaning of the citizenship sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-1-3/ALDE_00000813/

Based on the first sentence of Section 1, the Court has held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.1 The requirement that a person be subject to the jurisdiction thereof, however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation,2 or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.3 In addition, the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas has generally been held by the lower courts to be determined by the citizenship of the parents.4 Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States.5

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-1-2/ALDE_00000812/

Correct….all citizens are NOT natural born citizens.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[RedFan]

Their parents were not citizens at the time of their birth.

That fact is irrelevant to the citizenship of their American-born kids.

 

[Taken]

That fact is irrelevant to the citizenship of their American-born kids.

No one challenged what a US citizen is…
The challenge regarding Harris & Obama is;
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, which applies to NEITHER Harris or Obama.

If you were NOT taught the Difference IN your childhood school days, WHY as an adult BEFORE stepping up to the Ballot Box, did you NOT learn the FACTS regarding WHO IS and WHO IS NOT Constitutionally QUALIFIED to be LEGALLY seated as President AND Vice President of the United States?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[RedFan]

No one challenged what a US citizen is…
The challenge regarding Harris & Obama is;
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, which applies to NEITHER Harris or Obama.

If you were NOT taught the Difference IN your childhood school days, WHY as an adult BEFORE stepping up to the Ballot Box, did you NOT learn the FACTS regarding WHO IS and WHO IS NOT Constitutionally QUALIFIED to be LEGALLY seated as President AND Vice President of the United States?

Glory to God,
Taken

It is not a qualification for being President that a person born on American soil have parents who are U.S. citizens.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Watch it again. Kamala didn't provoke Trump at all. He wasn't angry at Kamala; he was angry at the ABC Moderators. Trump's emotional response to Kamala was smiling, which indicated his amusement at her predictable recitation of worn-out, false rhetoric. Trump's scowl was directed at the ABC moderators who were unfair.

He did that.

No. Trump didn't forget his point. The moderators interrupted Trump. Whenever Kamala got into trouble that way, the moderators stepped in to change the subject. Kamala was directly responsible for the war in Ukraine, and when Trump pressed the point, the moderators changed the subject. When Trump pressed her on Afghanistan, the moderators changed the subject.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I’m not saying that can’t be true. I was only sharing another perspective here. Because so many have the same perspective that Trump did well. How he won the debate. I’m not politically astute but I can understand being provoked. I am familiar with how people can get under your skin. I’m familiar with losing it when poked continuously by some one to where, later you regret the things that flew out of your mouth. I’ve also been in court and saw people very similar to Kamala whose main goal is to push people’s buttons. Poking and stabbing… to wake up an enraged reaction they can use for their advantage. Reminds me of whom a man is overcome by, the same is brought into bondage of. I doubt I’ll watch it (the debate) again. I respect your perspective. I’m only hoping if Trump does debate Kamala again…he does better. Even if he did well in this debate…personally I wouldn’t want to see a repeat of it.

 

[Taken]

It is not a qualification for being President that a person born on American soil have parents who are U.S. citizens.

You have YET to reveal your understanding OF:

The Qualifications for a person to be LAWFULLY elected as a President AND VP of the United States

Why don’t you reveal your understanding?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I’m not saying that can’t be true. I was only sharing another perspective here. Because so many have the same perspective that Trump did well.

Let me put it this way, Trump missed some opportunities; he missed some himself, but the moderators denied him others.

How he won the debate.

Who won the debate? ABC. The event was purposely staged to promote ABC and glorify the moderators.

I’m not politically astute but I can understand being provoked. I am familiar with how people can get under your skin. I’m familiar with losing it when poked continuously by some one to where, later you regret the things that flew out of your mouth.

I understand, but Trump was not provoked, or poked and Kamala didn't get under his skin.

I’ve also been in court and saw people very similar to Kamala whose main goal is to push people’s buttons.

Kamala tried to push buttons, but she wasn't successful.

 

[RedFan]

You have YET to reveal your understanding OF:

The Qualifications for a person to be LAWFULLY elected as a President AND VP of the United States

Why don’t you reveal your understanding?

Sure. The three qualifications are found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

I have already posted on the "natural born citizen" requirement in my post #77. Being at least 35 years old, and a resident for at least 14 years, are pretty self-explanatory.

This might be helpful to you: "Natural Born Citizen" – American University Law Review

 

[Taken]

Sure. The three qualifications are found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

I have already posted on the "natural born citizen" requirement in my post #77. Being at least 35 years old, and a resident for at least 14 years, are pretty self-explanatory.

This might be helpful to you: "Natural Born Citizen" – American University Law Review

MOOT…
Law students from whatever University, composing Law Reviews are not the source for determining the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, RATHER the Understanding rests according to the Statesmen who Drafted and PASSED, US Constitution.

 

[Taken]

Sure. The three qualifications are found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

I have already posted on the "natural born citizen" requirement in my post #77. Being at least 35 years old, and a resident for at least 14 years, are pretty self-explanatory.

This might be helpful to you: "Natural Born Citizen" – American University Law Review

You neglected to reveal YOUR understanding of Natural Born Citizen.

 

[RedFan]

You neglected to reveal YOUR understanding of Natural Born Citizen.

Except for the American-born child of a foreign diplomat (this is a complex question of International law that I don't have time to get into), I say a "natural born citizen" is any person born on American soil whose parents are residents at the time (whether or not those parents are also "citizens"). I find persuasive the conclusion of the Court in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana that "persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

As to those born outside the USA I take the view of Clement and Katyal in their Harvard Law Review article On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” - Harvard Law Review

 

[RedFan]

MOOT…
Law students from whatever University, composing Law Reviews are not the source for determining the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, RATHER the Understanding rests according to the Statesmen who Drafted and PASSED, US Constitution.

Well, the Fordham Law Review article I cited was not composed by law students, but by a law professor. Many law review articles are quite erudite and comprehensive, and are regularly relied on by courts. When I was a student at Cornell Law School in the 1970s that was certainly true.

 

[Taken]

Sure. The three qualifications are found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

I have already posted on the "natural born citizen" requirement in my post #77. Being at least 35 years old, and a resident for at least 14 years, are pretty self-explanatory.

This might be helpful to you: "Natural Born Citizen" – American University Law Review

I was not having a conversation with the US Constitution or the American University Law Review.

My question was to YOU, what YOU understand the words;
Natural Born Citizen … to mean.

 

[RedFan]

I was not having a conversation with the US Constitution or the American University Law Review.

My question was to YOU, what YOU understand the words;
Natural Born Citizen … to mean.

And I have answered you in post #91.

PM me if you want to discuss further.

 

[Taken]

I say a "natural born citizen" is any person born on American soil whose parents are residents at the time (whether or not those parents are also "citizens").

Finally….your answer of what you believe!

Disagree…that SOIL is the ONLY consideration.

Do “YOU” believe….Gods Word of His Standards and Principles HAD ANY influence in the Founders of the US, establishing Standards and Principles FOR the US Republic Governments?

 

[RedFan]

Finally….your answer of what you believe!

Disagree…that SOIL is the ONLY consideration.

I didn't say soil was the only consideration, hence my reference to the Harvard Law Review article on how foreign born persons can also be deemed natural born citizens. If we are going to have an intelligent discussion on this, you'll need to read my posts with more care. Again, if you want to discuss the topic further, PM me.

 

[mailmandan]

Trump was right about the pets in Springfield, Ohio, although Kamala scoffed at him.

I already knew the Haitians were decapitating ducks from the park to eat.
But it's pets, too.

Ohio Resident Horrified After Spotting Missing Cat 'Hanging from a Branch, Being Carved Up for Food' by Haitian Migrants: Report | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft

A shocking post from a local Springfield community group has sparked alarm after a resident shared a disturbing exchange with her neighbor regarding the safety of pets and local wildlife.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Feds and New York City Announce Plans To Crack Down on Animal Sacrifices That Don't Exist According to Liberal Media | The Gateway Pundit | by Jordan Conradson

New York City and Federal Officials have announced plans to crack down on animal abuse in Queens after discovering mutilated animals, including pigs, rats, chickens, and dogs, near Jamaica Bay.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Taken]

I didn't say soil was the only consideration, hence my reference to the Harvard Law Review article on how foreign born persons can also be deemed natural born citizens. If we are going to have an intelligent discussion on this, you'll need to read my posts with more care. Again, if you want to discuss the topic further, PM me.

I read your post…I didn’t limit anything…

I responded to your express point, regarding ANY person born on American soil being a natural born citizen.

By your comment….for example…An American “humanitarian” Ship, (which IS legally considered American soil)…could be stationed off the coast of ANY foreign Nation offering “medical” AID…and a AID in the delivery of a baby, OF TWO FOREIGN parents, and that born baby, BE a “Natural born citizen” of the US? That same child could live with his Foreign parents….(with his FOREIGN…(foundation of Foreign: Laws, customs, language, religion, ideologies morals)…Apply for an American VISA….Come to the US in his early (age) 20’s…and at age 35 Be Lawfully Qualified to be a Candidate, and even Lawfully ELECTED as President or VP of the United States?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[RedFan]

I read your post…I didn’t limit anything…

I responded to your express point, regarding ANY person born on American soil being a natural born citizen.

By your comment….for example…An American “humanitarian” Ship, (which IS legally considered American soil)…could be stationed off the coast of ANY foreign Nation offering “medical” AID…and a AID in the delivery of a baby, OF TWO FOREIGN parents, and that born baby, BE a “Natural born citizen” of the US? That same child could live with his Foreign parents….(with his FOREIGN…(foundation of Foreign: Laws, customs, language, religion, ideologies morals)…Apply for an American VISA….Come to the US in his early (age) 20’s…and at age 35 Be Lawfully Qualified to be a Candidate, and even Lawfully ELECTED as President or VP of the United States?

Glory to God,
Taken

You haven't read my post with adequate care. I said

Except for the American-born child of a foreign diplomat (this is a complex question of International law that I don't have time to get into), I say a "natural born citizen" is any person born on American soil whose parents are residents at the time (whether or not those parents are also "citizens")

Your humanitarian ship example -- even if that ship were considered "American soil" -- won't qualify the baby as a natural born citizen of the United States.

 

[Taken]

You haven't read my post with adequate care. I said

Your humanitarian ship example -- even if that ship were considered "American soil" -- won't qualify the baby as a natural born citizen of the United States.

An American ship…where-ever IS American soil…
An American Military post…where-ever IS American soil…

According to your claim…a birth on American soil…= that child being a “natural born citizen”.

Discovery of the understanding of “natural born citizen” has many facets to consider…

Glory to God,
Taken