The Trump short list for vice presidential candidates is reportedly down to Ohio Senator, J.D. Vance, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum. Rubio is a favorite for many due to his record in the Senate and his appeal to hispanic voters (where the GOP is hoping to make gains in the coming election). The problem is not Rubio or his record, but his residence.
The Twelfth Amendment contains a habitation or “favorite sons” provision: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves.”
The risk is that Florida’s electoral votes could be challenged in any election since both Trump and Rubio reside in the state. That is a chunk of 30 votes in a close election. In addition other states which sought to block Trump from the ballot like Colorado could try this new tack to derail his campaign.
The most obvious option is for either Trump or Rubio to move. The easiest would be for Trump to move since Rubio represents Florida. That could include either New York or New Jersey ( where his Bedminster property is located).
That option would be costly for Trump in terms of taxes. Moreover, Trump is desperately trying to get out of New York where he is effectively shackled to the defense table as his opponent, President Joe Biden, campaigns around the country.
The funny thing is that Trump has been campaigning in New York and drawing some large crowds. It would be the height of irony if Trump ends up making New York competitive with a mix of the time forced to be in the state and a change of residency.
Alternatively, Rubio could resign from the Senate and focus on running with a residence in a different state. He could also attempt a more creative approach and just change residency for the election.
Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 3:
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
Rubio can argue that he was “an Inhabitant” of Florida “when elected.” Given the recent controversy over the appointment of Democratic Senator Laphonza Butler, it could be hard for some Democrats to object.
Yet, there will be some who will no doubt try. In 2000, Dick Cheney was challenged by three Texas residents when he moved back to Wyoming. They failed.
Ultimately, it could also be challenged in Congress under the Electoral Count Reform Act.
Despite declaring the challenge to the Biden election was an attack on democracy, Democratic members previously challenged Republican presidents in Congress, including Jan. 6th committee head Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.)
In other words, it could be done but it would likely draw challenges. Then again, why should this part of the election be any different from every other part?
AFL Lawsuit Reveals Shocking Internal Emails from HHS Meetings with “Gender Affirming Care Providers,” Discussing How to Leverage Federal Power to Evade State Legislation Banning Mutilation of Children
https://aflegal.org/afl-lawsuit-reveals-shocking-internal-emails-from-hhs-meetings-with-gender-affirming-care-providers-discussing-how-to-leverage-federal-power-to-evade-state-legislation-banning-mutil/
More evidence of the Biden admin grooming children.
Look at UpstateFarmer being like Dennis with all the off-topic ‘comments’.
The difference being I am pointing out all the lies that have been told to us by the Biden admin and MSM.
The evidence points out their narratives are failing. Again.
Says the Russian propagandist.
Show me where I am a Russian propagandist.
I am just pointing out reality of the situation.
You are just too stupid to see it.
And you prove it every day.
Sticking to the topic at hand would seem more appropriate, but…
Yes, similar to Dennis and his highly partisan ‘look over there instead’.
Are you also ‘on the job, poking holes’ like he and gigi are?
Welcome to Tom’s sociopathic world. His posts have become a source of darkness, sinister, and bleak, all hosted on Jonathan Turley’s legal forum. It was a decent forum even with the paid DNC trolls but Tom’s sociopathy has taken this forum into the gutter, to quote Sam.
John Adams quote is more applicable than ever:
While our Country remains untainted with the Principles and manners, which are now producing desolation in so many Parts of the World: while she continues Sincere and incapable of insidious and impious Policy: We shall have the Strongest Reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned Us by Providence. But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102
Best wishes to all. I’m done here.
I’m not sold on Rubio as the best VP candidate from a vote-garnering standpoint, and definately not saguine about him as a potential POTUS. I’d much rather see Trumo pick someone more willing to hold the neocons and the Deep State to account, although I’m not sure any of the other candidates on Trump’s alleged short list meet that criterion, either. NTM that Rubio has always come across to me as shallow, and a bit supercilious. Is he even capable of doing the attack campaigning that is going to be required? Also, if the criteria is someone who will attract voters that Trump would not, is geographical diversity no longer a factor in that equation? Rubio is established and best known in Florida, and moving a few months before the election is not going to change that. K. Noem previously seemed to be a reasonably good choice (in spite of her questionable official favoratism to her daugher a few years back) but the dog killing revelation in her memoirs has destroyed her viability, and possibly her career.
The war can be ended by a decapitation strike against government buildings in Moscow.
https://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/Modern/MacArthurAndBaseball
A decapitation strike will avoid costly frontal assaults.
Hit the Russian soldiers where they ain’t, but where their leaders are.
Why doesn’t Trump just do the fake electors scheme again?
Please read past supreme court decisions – they are not fake, they are alternate and that is precisely how the Courts a century+ ago determined that you constitutionally context an election
Exactly! 1876 presidential election.
When you arguments disolve when you eliminate the spin and 1964 newspeak you might ponder whether you have a clue.
You mean like Al Gore?
Perhaps the bigger problem is that Rubio is not constitutionally eligible to be president, which is required to be vice-president. But of course neither is Ted Cruz. And Kamala Harris is already vice president, but she’s not eligible to be president.
None of them are “natural born citizens”.
https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2016/02/23/rubio-too/
A natural born citizen is someone with at least one American citizen parent, regardless of place of birth.
Did you know that John McCain was born in Panama?
Did you know that Mark Meadows was born in France?
Did you know that Ted Cruz was born in Canada?
Did you know that Dan Crenshaw was born in the UK?
As long as you have an American parent you are automatically a citizen, no matter where you are born.
“The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency, resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was “inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘natural born Citizen.’”
None of that matters. Natural born citizen means someone born in the country whose parents are citizens. It’s in the constitution and can only be changed by amendment. I support such an amendment, and believe the natural born citizen requirement has, at minimum, outlived its usefulness, but that’s why we have an amendment process. It doesn’t matter that the Senate “unanimously agreed”. The constitution’s provisions are either binding or they aren’t. If they aren’t we have even bigger problems than who is eligible to be president.
“NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
“PARENTS” (PLURAL) AND “A FATHER”
__________________________________________
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
I think the better argument is, as you say, that BOTH parents must be citizens for their child to qualify as “natural born”. I think there might be room to honestly argue that so long as one parent is a citizen the child can still qualify. But there is no room to honestly argue that Cruz is eligible, or that Rubio is eligible, or that Harris is eligible, without amending the constitution, which by the way I have no problem with. But that is the solution, not dishonest quibbles about what natural born citizen meand.
The better argument is that a simple “citizen” is a lower status required for the offices of Congress and Senate and requires only that one be born in the country of one parent who was a citizen at the time of birth of the candidate.
“Natural born citizen” is a superior status for the superior offices of president and vice president, requiring two parents who were citizens at the time of birth of the candidate.
All presidents before Obama had two parents who were citizens at the time of birth of the candidate.
You are absolutely wrong!!!
The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the “natural born citizen” definition as it relates to eligibility for the Presidency.
However a number of courts have defined “natural born citizen”, for purposes other than Presidential eligibility, as someone who was automatically US citizen at birth (by virtue of a citizen parent) and who did not need to go through a process of naturalization later in life.
This allowed John McCain to run for President. The Senate resolution was simply to make clear that they supported his candidacy.
Of course the other consideration is that 8 of our Presidents were not born as citizens of the United States.
These men were born before the American Revolution, and they each became United States citizens only after independence. To ensure that members of the founding generation were not precluded from the presidency, the Framers inserted language into the Eligibility Clause that allowed “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” to serve. Martin van Buren, who became the country’s eighth President in 1837, was the first natural born citizen elected to this office.
Well, as with everything else you have written here, the response is…so what? Even if someone who was not a natural born citizen became president before, the requirement under the constitution is that the president must be a natural born citizen, and if we want to change that we can, by amendment, and I think we should do so, and I think we should do so right away so that Harris and Rubio and Cruz, et al, can be eligible. But I do not agree that we can corrupt language and thought to reach some conclusion more in line with what we want. Which is what you are doing, and anyone else who denies the problem.
“Which is what you are doing, and anyone else who denies the problem.”
Read your own writing.
The plain text of the constitution does NOT say – born in the US of Two US citizens.
You and George are using other texts to claim that the founders “meant” that when they said “natural born citizen” – that IS a valid way of trying to understand the original meaning of the phrase. But you do not get to use a single text, and a single interpretation of that text, and a text that is not even a US text to begin with and then claim because that text existed and our founders must have been familiar with it that is whet they meant.
The statement by the Senate with respect to McCain is meaningless, but the weight of the evidence YOU are raising to support YOUR specific and not self evident meaning is a thin reed unable to support the burden you have on it.
There is nothing to “interpret”, which you might understand if you had any background in statutory “construction”.
“Natural born citizen” had, and has, a specific meaning. It is distinguished from “citizen” for the simple reason that it has two additional words. Duh. It is an archaic requirement and should be abolished, I agree. But it’s there, in the constitution, and we don’t get to “interpret” our way out of it, unless we’re willing to be willfully stupid or dishonest, to the extent those two can be distinguished.
Maybe this will help you:
https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2020/08/14/natural-born-citizen-ii/#comment-11939
Jay and Washington intended to “provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Jay and Washington relied on the requirement in the Law of Nations that the father of the candidate be a citizen to do so.
Natural born citizen without context means every person in the world who emerged from his mother’s womb.
“VATTEL’S TEACHINGS…WERE NOT ONLY CAREFULLY STUDIED BY AMERICAN STATESMEN BUT APPLIED BY THEM….”
The Law of Nations (1758)
Emmerich de Vattel | 1758
Summary
Emmerich de Vattel (1714-67) was the author of The Law of Nations (1758). Swiss-born Vattel’s most famous work consisted of the application of the law of nature to nations. He understood the law of nature as accessible by human reason, according to which both individuals and political societies are capable of understanding their rights and obligations. Introduced into the American colonies in the 1760s, Vattel’s teachings about international law and sovereignty were not only carefully studied by American statesmen but applied by them in the international arena.
– National Constitution Center
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/emmerich-de-vattelthe-law-of-nations-1758
You are absolutely wrong.
The Framers put the requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen” in 1789, not in the era of John McCain; the Founders and Framers didn’t know a thing about John McCain.
What did exist in 1789 was the Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758.
What was used as the legal text and reference in 1789 was the Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758.
The legal basis for their requirement of “natural born citizen” was in the very legal text and reference of the era that “has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,….”
To wit,
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
What in all your diatribe cites a single framer as saying – “when we wrote “natural born citizen” we were refering to “the law of nations” by Vattel.
It is not as if “the law of nations” is even actual law.
There is no such thing as the law of nations even today.
The relations of nations with each other is a perfect example of anarcho-capitalism that has been working for about 7000 years.
Today international law means “we as a nation agree to abide by this law and expect other nations to do so – until we don’t”
There is no global police.
So you are citing something that our founders might have found interesting and enlightening. They might have agreed with.
But they NEVER found as binding. Because it is not.
If you are going to claim “natural born citizen” is a term of art or law with an established meaning that our founders would not only have been familiar with – but accepted, your going to have to come up with more than a letter from Franklin saying “Thank you for the book, I found it interesting, and shared it with others”
You need MULTIPLE framers clearly defining Natural born citizen int he way YOU claim.
Our courts in some instances go back to pre-revoluaitonary law and practice, and more rarely to english law and proactice.
But those are ACTUAL LAW or ACTUAL PRACTICE. There is not such a thing as binding law of nations TODAY,
To the extent our founders would have called anything actual LAW OF NATIONS – that would be the treaties the US was bound by.
This is a doubly losing argument.
It is incredibly weak, and it is an open invitations for leftists to find some book or text published prior to framing the constitution and try to reinterpret the constitution in that light.
Read Thomas Paines “The Rights of Man” sometime – do you want the 2nd Book – which is just Paines version of pre-socialism to be used by the Left. Read it sometime. You could easily justify pretty much every left wing nut give away using it.
Are you going to argue that our Founders were NOT familiar with Thomas Paine or “the rights of man”.
I would bet more have read all of Paines work than any of Vattel’s.
Your engaged in a pretty obvious logical fallacy of attempting to jump from an at best marginally related specific to a constitutional generalization.
You need ALOT more to be able to do that.
The SCOTUS 2nd amendment decisions starting with Heller and McDonald – did not rest on ONE law in revolutionary or pre-revolutionary time. But a huge body of law, and practice – in the colonies for over a century, and in the republic during its early years.
Do not be stupid and open the door to the left to this kind of shallow origtinalism that can easily be used to get you anywhere you want to go.
George you are a smart person – and even when I do not agree with you – your arguments are worth listening to.
Bujt this one will not bear the weight you are putting on it.
The framers and ratifiers were certainly familiar with all of Paine’s writing. He was extremely popular at the time, even if most people disagreed with him. So yes, they were familiar with his proto-socialist ideas, and rejected them. Whereas very few were familiar with Vattel; the letter from Franklin shows how obscure he was at the time, since Franklin is thanking his friend for sending him three copies, which he has made available for people to read. That means most of them had never read him before, and in all likelihood most never took advantage of the opportunity to read the copy Franklin put in the congressional library.
There was a reason Washington let Paine languish in a French prison and refused to pull any strings to try to get him out.
And, of course, the proof is in the pudding.
All honest actual Americans understood that Vattel’s definition applied in the Constitution and in genuine elections.
________________________________________________
“EVERY PRESIDENT EXCEPT TWO HAD TWO U.S.-CITIZEN PARENTS”
__________________________________________________________________________
Natural-born-citizen clause (United States)
“Of those in the latter group, every president except two (Chester A. Arthur and Barack Obama) had two U.S.-citizen parents.”
– Wikipedia
Natural-born-citizen clause (United States) – Wikipedia
You are absolutely making it up as you go along to fit your arbitrarily chosen outcome.
You need to amend the Constitution to impose that which you speculate about.
The Constitution was adopted in 1789, not the 20th century.
– The “Supreme Court” of 1869 “decided” the secession is unconstitutional. That corrupted court simply intended to further the progressive march toward communism commenced by “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, Karl Marx’s “fellow traveler” (letter Marx to Lincoln 1865 – https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm), who had denied not-prohibited and fully constitutional secession, initiated an unconstitutional war, illegally imposed martial law and seized power as a tyrant.
– The “Supreme Court” of 1973 “decided” that abortion was a national, federal, and constitutional right and freedom. That corrupted court insanely furthered the lunacy of the communist “dictatorship of the proletariat” and promoted not a strong fertility rate but the mass murder of America’s babies.
No “Natural born citizen” means what it litteraly says using the plain meaning of those words to the people at the time it was written.
If there is ambiguity in that meaning then we look at what those who wrote the text said about it contemporaneously. If it is still unclear we move slightly further away in time and in people.
Trying to overload the meaning in the manner in which you are trying to do is a reach. The various tests that have been cited – are pretty distant and not especially clear. Those on the right should not engage in the same nonsense that the left does and try to overload something in the constitution with either more or less meaning than it has. You do not get to piss over the lefts living constitutionalism when you too are trying to bend fold spindle and mutilate what our founders said.
Except, of course, that the meaning is not ambiguous.
And, of course, the proof is in the pudding.
All honest actual Americans understood that Vattel’s definition applied in the Constitution in 1789 and in genuine elections.
You, by contrast, cannot.
____________________________
“EVERY PRESIDENT EXCEPT TWO HAD TWO U.S.-CITIZEN PARENTS”
__________________________________________________________________________
Natural-born-citizen clause (United States)
“Of those in the latter group, every president except two (Chester A. Arthur and Barack Obama) had two U.S.-citizen parents.”
– Wikipedia
Natural-born-citizen clause (United States) – Wikipedia
None of that matters. Natural born citizen means someone born in the country whose parents are citizens. It’s in the constitution
No, it is NOT in the constitution. You made it up. “Natural born citizen” does not mean that, and has never meant that. Vattel is irrelevant; most of the framers and ratifiers had never read him, and few if any were much influenced by him.
There are only two viable definitions of “natural born citizen”:
1. The one that the vast majority of current scholars accept, which is “citizen at birth”.
2. The one that Blackstone gives, which is “born under the protection of US law”.
Under either definition, 0bama, Harris, McCain, and Rubio all qualify. Under Blackstone’s definition Ted Cruz and George Romney would not qualify, since they were born abroad, with US citizenship but under the protection of foreign law.
“Scholars”? Please.
Maybe we need to take a deep dive into all kinds of other terms in the constitution, like “legislature” or “state” and see how much we can complicate the simple because we don’t like the actual meaning of the words. I don’t have any problem with Rubio or Cruz or Harris being eligible for the presidency, or any citizen, born in the US or not. But I’m not going to “interpret” words to mean something they don’t to bring things more in conformity with my opinions.
At least you can’t accuse me of validating Hume’s dictum that reason is always the servant of the passions.
. But I’m not going to “interpret” words to mean something they don’t
That is exactly what you are doing. “Natural born citizen” does not mean, and never has meant, what you claim it does. You’re simply making it up.
Really? Is this also the opinion of “everyone who matters”, a category of (presumably) persons you have yet to identify or explain?
You don’t argue honestly. Obviously, I’m not “making it up”. Here’s an example of an honest take on the subject:
https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/the-natural-born-citizen-fiasco/
From 2016, before we even had a President Trump. Note how the opposing argument is fairly considered out in the open before being rejected. Note how no one is accused of making anything up, although they are accused of being disingenuous and dishonest, as I am accusing you of being now.
As I’ve repeatedly said, I think the phrase should be repealed, but I’m also honest enough to admit that this has to be by constitutional amendment, which is a lot of work. Sometimes doing things the right way requires a lot of work, of course, and there’s always a temptation to take a shortcut, even a dishonest one.
And there’s also the significant possibility that the effort to amend the constitution will fail, and we’ll be stuck with it. But that’s how we decided to be governed all those years ago in Philadelphia, unless we want to change that, too.
That is NOT an “honest take”, it’s a very dishonest and stupid take, by a nutcase like you (if you didn’t write it yourself).
“2. The one that Blackstone gives, which is ‘born under the protection of US law.'”
– Milhouse
______________
It’s getting really, really bad, folks.
“US law” didn’t exist until 1789 at the earliest.
Blackstone died in 1780.
Blackstone defines the term “natural born subject” by asserting that a person owes a natural debt of loyalty to the sovereign under whose protection he was born. Unlike Vattel, all the framers and ratifiers were very familiar with Blackstone, and understood the term “natural born citizen” to be simply the republican version of “natural born subject”. In the USA we are citizens, not subjects, but the same legal rules apply.
98% of presidents – 45 of 46 – had two parents who were citizens at the time of birth of the candidate.
Why did they pay such close attention to Vattel?
Simply coincidence?
Chester Arthur went so far as to cover his ineligibility by switching birth certificates with his long-since-deceased brother.
Only one president did not have two parents who were citizens or a father who was a citizen at the time of the birth of the candidate; that was Obama, the global communist Deep Deep State “Swamp” candidate.
They didn’t pay attention to Vattel. And Arthur didn’t switch his birth certificate with his brother. That was a lie that his opponents unsuccessfully tried to spread during the campaign, in order to claim he was born in Canada (after first claiming he was born in Ireland).
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
MILHOUSE,
“CENTURIES AFTER HIS DEATH IT WAS FOUND THAT UNITED STATES PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON HAD A NUMBER OF OVERDUE LIBRARY BOOKS, DATING BACK OVER 221 YEARS.
ONE OF THEM WAS THE LAW OF NATIONS.”[2][3]
– WIKIPEDIA
As I pointed out to you before, Washington borrowed the book WELL AFTER the Philadelphia Convention. Which means that at the time of the convention he had NOT read it. And the fact that he never returned it may mean that he never got around to reading it at all.
“Natural born citizen *means someone born in the country whose parents are citizens*. It’s in the constitution . . .” (emphasis added)
Hogwash.
There is no such meaning stated in the Constitution.
The constitution also does not define “state” or “legislature”, although of course these are important terms and we have to operate on a reasonable understanding of what the terms mean.
If you don’t like the “natural born citizen” requirement you should work to amend the constitution to repeal it instead of taking an untenable and irrational position that “scholars” or some such can render an obviously meaningful term meaningless, or dishonestly ascribe to it some meaning that fits with a current political agenda, such as supporting this or that candidate for the office who would otherwise be disqualified.
Here’s the essence of it:
https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/the-natural-born-citizen-fiasco/
You should read that. Probably a lot of people should.
No, nobody should read it, because it’s a load of garbage, that you probably wrote.
I definitely wrote it! But I sense hostility!
How about this: let’s agree that the phrase “natural born citizen” should be repealed, preempting our little disagreement here, and then we can declare a truce? Any citizen, even one not born here, should be eligible for the presidency. I have no problem with that proposition.
And briefly, I do not dispute that any of those individuals are citizens. Nor do I deny that people are “citizens” regardless of their place of birth if at least one of their parents is a citizen at the time of their birth. But the constitution requires that the president be a “natural born citizen”, not just a citizen, and it means something, and we know what it means, and if we want something different at this point we should amend the constitution, not strain argue – lie, in other words – that natural born citizen means something other than what it means.
Who is the “WE” you refer to when you say “we know what it means” to be a natural born citizen.
I think you really mean “I know what it means.” Well, you would be wrong.
The courts, including the Supreme Court, have held that a natural born citizen is one who was automatically a citizen at birth (by virtue of a citizen parent), and who did not need to undergo a legal process of naturalization later in life.
Thus, the current definition of natural born citizen is quite simply someone who is undeniably a citizen, but never had to undergo an official process of naturalization.
It is really quite that simple.
You should read the links. It is not a debatable point. Here, I’ll help you:
https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/the-natural-born-citizen-fiasco/
And contrary to your assertion, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the matter. But if the SCOTUS did, and they ruled anything other than what I have explained, they would be wrong, too, as they so often are.
I’ll say it again: I strongly support amending the constitution to delete the requirement. But unlike you and so many others, I do not pretend that words mean something other than what they mean so that I can achieve my desired outcome.
This is not complicated. And not debatable.
You should read the links. It is not a debatable point.
[…]
This is not complicated. And not debatable.
Your saying so doesn’t make it so. Your linked article is nonsense on top of nonsense. The position you claim is “not debatable” is indeed not debatable, because it has no basis, and everyone who matters says it’s WRONG.
Who “matters”? And why would they be able to determine who is right and who is wrong?
And, of course, the proof is in the pudding.
All honest actual Americans understood that Vattel’s definition applied in the Constitution in 1789 and in genuine elections.
You, by contrast, cannot.
____________________________
“EVERY PRESIDENT EXCEPT TWO HAD TWO U.S.-CITIZEN PARENTS”
__________________________________________________________________________
Natural-born-citizen clause (United States)
“Of those in the latter group, every president except two (Chester A. Arthur and Barack Obama) had two U.S.-citizen parents.”
– Wikipedia
Natural-born-citizen clause (United States) – Wikipedia
A senate resolution is completely irrelevant. The senate has no power to amend the constitution. If McCain were in fact ineligible for the presidency then not even 100 senate resolutions could make him eligible.
Likewise the argument that Harris must be eligible because she’s in fact the vice president is wrong and illogical. If she were ineligible then the fact that she was illegally elected and installed wouldn’t change that. The constitution doesn’t change just because people violate it.
The fact is that Harris is eligible, because she is a natural born citizen; but if she weren’t then her election wouldn’t change anything.
Tickler:(tentative trial dates)
Hunter Biden Court dates:
June 3rd – Felony Gun Case of 3 Federal Gun Charges in Delaware – U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika
June 20th – Federal Tax Trial of 9 tax-related charges in California – U.S. Central District of California Los Angeles Judge Mark C. Scarsi
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/hunter-biden-gun-case-gets-tentative-trial-date-june-3-rcna143308
I hope they get Hunter Biden. I’m tired of gun nuts.
Personally, I am thankful for note in our Constitution. There are many others better than Marco who don’t in the same state as Trump. Look in TX -Cruz, OK – Cotton, and so many more, including Tim Scott in SC. There are so many but they themselves need to show their hand and then Trump will have all he needs to pick from. The bigger problem … the GOP house members like Vance, Green, and the so called “Freedom Caucus” which is anything but what they claim. In many ways they are worst than RINOs, IMO. The Senate is much the same. When the GOP stop FIGHTING EACH OTHER, then they might eventually get around to doing the job they were (hired) elected to do. GOP don’t worry about the DEMs they are worse than you guys and AMERICA is waking up to that fact — thanks to Joey and his Kackalying VP. DECIDE WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR AMERICA’S SAKE, ESTABLISH A PLAN, PRESENT THAT PLAN TO AMEIRCA AND TRUST IN THE “CREATOR” MENTIONED IN OUR Proclamation of Independence and out beautiful Constitution and the laws that work. Like those related to the Border, that Trump used when he WAS THE President. If you do I have some assurance that he can be again. BUT as long as y’all act like “children” on a playground at recess, then you can KISS our Republic goodbye!
In both cases, Biden or Trump, it’s very likely that the V.P. is going to end up President.
By the President’s Natural Death or Resignation.
Just another reason to vote for Trump.
The idea of Kamala being Pres. gives me the Cali Cartel Willies (The California Cartel & Willy Brown effect)
James says:
2:33 pm
“Cue: the comments from trolls that do not address much of anything but their own hyperbole. Again, if these trolls aren’t paid (and I think they are, every last one of them..
………………………………..
James is Floyd Estovir, of course. And he seems to post variations of this comment at least 3 or 4 times per week under different names.
The idea seems to be that Floyd is the unofficial gatekeeper of this blog and he’s constantly under siege by all these ‘paid trolls’. As though no liberal has any business commenting on this blog.
The only ‘real’ commenters are Floyd’s endless puppets!
Floyd’s real identity, and purpose on this blog, have been a mystery for 5 years at this point.
Even the most loyal followers have other things to do in life. Yet Floyd is typically on this blog for 16 hours per day. And ‘he’ complains about “paid trolls”??
The irony is beyond ridiculous.
…one of them, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state as themselves. The …at least…implies the impossible both are not an inhabitant of the same state as themselves. Also its not clear to me if it refers to the president and vice president or to the electors?
Huh? The text is perfectly clear, and only an idiot would not understand it. The vast majority of electors vote for two candidates, neither of whom lives in the same state as they do. For instance I don’t think there has ever been a presidential or vice presidential candidate from Idaho, so ever since Idaho became a state its electors have always voted for two candidates neither of whom were from Idaho.
I would like to see a VP that is familiar with Washington DC. Knew their way around, had contacts and friends,
Rick Grennell comes to mind. He filled several pivitol positions in the Trump administration. But he did such a good job, maybe his talents would be wasted as VP. Another but. Cheney was a good VP and did a lot of behind the scenes stuff. Love him or hate him, he moved the ball.
Tulsi Gabbard
I really like her too but she’s a Socialist card holder, therefore NO!
I don’t think he will pick Rubio, in part because of this problem. JD Vance would be the most edgy pick, and would set him up well for 2028, win or lose, but would not do much in the way of outreach to voters not committed to Trump already. Doug Burgum would be a solid choice. I’m still hoping for Ben Carson.
I hear talk of retired Rep Fred Upton in the running for V.P.
That’s funny.
That’s interesting – He’s better than Pence by a long shot, and he likes Sports Golf.
‘It’s been a good run’
Fred Upton reflects on an 18-term congressional career
By: Juliana Knot ~ Dec 7, 2022
https://www.harborcountry-news.com/news/fred-upton-reflects-on-an-18-term-congressional-career/article_505fe5a7-26b4-5459-b39f-8729c9072905.html
Fred Upton Leaves a “Rich Legacy of Achievement and a Devoted Legion of Fans”
By: Pat Moody ~ December 21, 2022
https://www.moodyonthemarket.com/fred-upton-leaves-a-rich-legacy-of-achievement-and-a-devoted-legion-of-fans/
-TRA
Saw you on Fox as a panelist, Big John. About time. Don’t know how much money you’d like to make, but you could surpass audience size in the noon to 3 pm time slot vacated by you know who. There is an ENORMOUS conservative vacuum at that time, and you could fill it successfully and make hundreds of millions–start your own law school. Buy the Cubbies!
Such is life!
Trump came move-to Vladivostok. Russia is nice this time of the year.
LOCK HIM UP!
For Wally: use in case of extreme TDS!
Apply liberally, as often as needed
https://photos.app.goo.gl/xev7PgMt1WZ8g14p9
I bet Wally wears a toe ring and farts tofu!
Ulyanovsk is nicer this time of year
Trump is not the one getting diamonds from Russian Oligarchs.
Putin endorsed Biden for president.
Rubio is an aficionado of bubble baths. Also, Deep State puppet.
No way.
Thank you, Mr. Turley, for your commentary. Always amusing.
Hell, we’re still not even sure obama was an AMERICAN…WHY WORRY
Obama’s mother was an American. No matter where he was born, he is by definition an American citizen.
Did you know that John McCain was born in Panama?
Did you know that Mark Meadows was born in France?
Did you know that Ted Cruz was born in Canada?
Did you know that Dan Crenshaw was born in the UK?
As long as you have an American parent you are automatically a citizen, no matter where you are born.
While George is wrong about his unique interpretation of a Natural Born citizen – there is actually a signficant amount of law and practice that NBC does require – atleast ONE US Citizen as a parent, AND Birth in the US, its territories, or a us citizen parent serving at an embassies, consulates, military bases or some other US government position outside the US.
Obama meets that He was born in Hawaii and his mother was a citizen. McCain was born in Panama while his father was serving in the military there
there is actually a signficant amount of law and practice that NBC does require – at least ONE US Citizen as a parent AND Birth in the US,
No, there isn’t. If someone’s born in the USA there is no law or practice saying that his parents matter at all (unless they were foreign diplomats).
Problem was she was a minor at his birth and therefore his father as an adult is where his legal status anchored. Don’t worry, I am quite certain when Trump is elected Obama will be thoroughly investigated for his treason.
Problem was she was a minor at his birth and therefore his father as an adult is where his legal status anchored.
That is high-octane bulldust. Whose behind did you pull that out of? Your own, or George’s? It certainly came out of someone’s behind, because it has no basis whatsoever in law or history.
Sorry that is a fact. Obama’s mother was a minor at the time of his birth, less than 21. His father (reportedly) was a Kenyan with British citizenship. Under immigration laws the child is considered a British citizen. It’s all moot at this point however we know he is a corrupt fraud like Joe. I am sure his day will come and all will be revealed, should be quite entertaining.
No, it is NOT a fact. It’s utter bull**** that you made up.
The constitution says EXPLICITLY that anyone born in the USA is a US citizen no matter WHO the parents are, or how old they are. No “immigration law” can say otherwise.
It may be that UK law in 1961 made 0bama a British subject (not citizen) as well, but that would be irrelevant. Nothing in the constitution bars a dual citizen from the presidency. A president can have any number of citizenships, so long as one of them is US, and he’s had that one since birth. (Or, if we take Blackstone’s explanation, so long as he was born under US protection). This is also why speculation about his having Indonesian citizenship is irrelevant. Supposing he were an Indonesian citizen it would not affect his eligibility.
What do you mean we’re still not sure?? We know he was not a AMERICAN. Couldn’t even produce a valid birth certificate.
Obama produced a valid birth certificate – though that is not the criteria. The Birth certificate is just the evidence.
It is highly likely the Birth certificate made public was edited – but not “fake” – my guess is that “Obama” was NOT his father.
But that is just a guess. Regardless Barry Soetto was born in HAwaii and his mother was a citizen.
No, he produced a record of live birth from Hawaii certified by a coconspirator. This record disintegrated under Joe Arpio and ex FBI forensic investigators. Complete forgery, review Phillip Berg and Hillary Clinton editorials as the original birthers, the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on America. Barry is a fraud through and through, his time is running out. When Trump wins I am confident it will all be revealed. They know they can’t steal this one, they are fighting for their lives.
More lies from Traveler. Arpaio is a raving lunatic and liar, as well as a convicted criminal.
He did eventually produce a valid birth certificate, which was NOT forged and NOT edited. Evidently his refusal to do so for so long was just him messing with people’s heads.
Bear in mind that he was not required to produce anything, and no previous presidential candidate had ever been asked to.
I do not believe that to be a true and factual statement. Obama was hailed as a foreign student at Harvard. Many believe he got foreign student subsidies but his records were all sealed. Why?
Traveler, you’re certainly full of bullsh*t today. Your previous claim about his mother being a minor making a difference was just stupid. This one is even stupider.
No, he was not “hailed as a foreign student” at Harvard, but even if he had been, so what? The law doesn’t give a sh*t about anyone “hailing” anyone. Nor does it care what “many believe”. Also, I don’t believe there were any “foreign student subsidies”.
His college records are sealed for the same reason that literally everyone else’s are. Because they’re the student’s private business and nobody else’s. There is no specific “seal” on them. 0bama never released them because that is not a standard practice, so why should he? Tell me one other presidential candidate who EVER released his.
Professor Turley would have us accept the clear meaning and intent of the Constitution upon its adoption in 1789 regarding the requirements for Senator but ignore the clear meaning and intent of the Constitution regarding the requirements for the Office of the President.
The definition of “Inhabitant” in 1789 was clear to all.
The definition of “Natural Born Citizen” was described definitively in the Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758, understanding that the Framers found it necessary “frequently to consult the law of nations…which has been continually in the hands of the members of the members of our Congress, now sitting….”
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
– Ben Franklin Letter to Charles Dumas
____________________________________________
Article 1, Section 3
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
___________________________________________
Article 2, Section 1
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;….
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Barack Obama will NEVER be eligible to be U.S. president.
Barack Obama’s father was a foreign citizen at the time of the candidate’s birth.
– A mere “citizen” could only have been President at the time of the adoption of the Constitution – not after.
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and that he be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”
– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for copies of the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
– “The importance of The Law of Nations, therefore, resides both in its systematic derivation of international law from natural law and in its compelling synthesis of the modern discourse of natural jurisprudence with the even newer language of political economy. The features help to explain the continuing appeal of this text well into the nineteenth century among politicians, international lawyers and political theorists of every complexion.”
– Law of Nations Editors Bela Kapossy and Richard Whatmore.
– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.
– The Constitution is not a dictionary and does not define esoteric words or phrases, while the Law of Nations, 1758, does.
– The Law of Nations is referenced in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, of the U.S. Constitution: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d
Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore
Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,
which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief
of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect
Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere
I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
Is posting this here supposed to undo his presidency?
I don’t know what, other than as a teacher of history, George seeks to accomplish here. I have said before that he is [mostly] right about his history but his timing is way off if he is seeking to change the present or the future. It is like reading about the Great Collapse of Civilization in the Late Bronze Age and thinking that wisdom will stave off the Chinese Take-Over of the world in the mid-21st Century.
Yes, Obama was not only an illegitimate President but a singularly destructive one but what we should be focused on is how to prevent a President Kamala Harris.
But George, we love you anyway. Thanks for the history lesson.
“WHERE THERE IS A WILL THERE IS A WAY AND WHAT COLONIZATION NEEDS MOST IS A HEARTY WILL”
– ABRAHAM LINCOLN
__________________________
One of Lincoln’s most representative public statements on the question of racial relations was given in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857.[6] In this address, he explained why he opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would have admitted Kansas into the Union as a slave state:
There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …
Racial separation, Lincoln went on to say, “must be effected by colonization” of the country’s blacks to a foreign land. “The enterprise is a difficult one,” he acknowledged,
but “where there is a will there is a way,” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.
By all means, argue against that which is presented.
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY the Value of money, Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, and land and naval Forces.
Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property. “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual,” said James Madison.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
IN A SOCIETY OF LAWS, LAWS MUST BE ADHERED TO
The Supreme Court recently and effectively acted retroactively by 50 years to strike down federal abortion and return abortion to the Constitution, or to the States.
The Supreme Court must now act retroactively by 150 years to strike down Lincoln’s denial of not-prohibited and fully constitutional secession and enforce immigration law extant on January 1, 1863, the Naturalization Act of 1802.
_______________________________________________________
“Where there’s a will there’s a way.”
– Abraham Lincoln
Nah! I seriously doubt that IS the short list. Only he knows & I doubt if all that think they’re “in the know” are not. I would LOVE Sarah Huckabee Sanders. A true Patriot, tough as nails, can’t be pushed around.