JOE BIDEN HAS OFFICIALLY QUIT THE RACE!

[Wingnut]

KJP.  Who's on 1st?

[Free Vulcan]

Yep, after threatened with the 25th and having all his corruption exposed, Old Skeez decided not to put himself first.

[LMAO]

Has there been any evidence yet that the president is still alive?

[bigheadfred]

Has there been any evidence yet that the president is still alive?

Yeah, he is.

[libertybele]

Has there been any evidence yet that the president is still alive?

@LMAO  --  https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,537531.msg3050615/topicseen.html#msg3050615

[LMAO]

@LMAO  --  https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,537531.msg3050615/topicseen.html#msg3050615

@libertybele

Thank you

[GtHawk]

@LMAO  --  https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,537531.msg3050615/topicseen.html#msg3050615

C'mon man! Did no one ever see the movie Dave?

[goatprairie]

He never should have been allowed to run in the first place and Kamala shouldn't be allowed to either. Neither of them are NBC as the Constitution requires.

Point out the section of the constitution where she is disqualified. The constitution is pretty vague about what constitutes a NBC. Most constitutional scholars say that anybody born in the U.S. not the child of foreign diplomats is a NBC. Harris was born in the U.S. (Oakland, Ca) , and her parents were not foreign diplomats.
At any rate, any attempts to disqualify Harris as not being a NBC will meet with dismal failure.

[Bigun]

Point out the section of the constitution where she is disqualified. The constitution is pretty vague about what constitutes a NBC. Most constitutional scholars say that anybody born in the U.S. not the child of foreign diplomats is a NBC. Harris was born in the U.S. (Oakland, Ca) , and her parents were not foreign diplomats.
At any rate, any attempts to disqualify Harris as not being a NBC will meet with dismal failure.

We have been visited recently with several very silly articles which assert that Marco Rubio is a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution (ratified 1788), and hence is qualified to be President:

Bret Baier (Fox News) asserts that Congress may define (and presumably redefine, from time to time) terms in the Constitution by means of law.

Chet Arthur in American Thinker quips that “the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’” is determined by reference to “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” and to the definition of “citizen” at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified 1868.

Human Events claims that anyone  born within The United States is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.

Jake Walker at Red State purports to show how the term has been used from 1795 to the present.  After quoting James Madison on the citizenship requirements imposed by Art. I, §2, cl. 2, to be a member of the House, Walker gleefully quotes a 1795 discussion of “natural born subject” to “prove” that anyone born here is a “natural born citizen”:

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…” [emphasis mine]

“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” [emphasis mine]

But “subjects” are not “citizens”; and we fought a war so that we could be transformed from “subjects of the British Crown” to Citizens of a Republic!

The four writers don’t know what they are talking about.  But I will tell you the Truth and prove it. We first address Word Definitions.

Word Definitions:

Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time.  “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”.

Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.

So!  In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it.  Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.

So!  Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used?  Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?

What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?

Article II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution, requires the President to be a “natural born Citizen”.

The meaning of this term is not set forth in The Constitution or in The Federalist Papers; and I found no discussion of the meaning in Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention or in Alexander Hamilton’s notes of the same.

What does this tell us? That they all knew what it meant. We don’t go around defining “pizza”, because every American over the age of four knows what a pizza is.

Our Framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles1 already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.

And we know that our Framers carefully studied and relied upon Vattel’s work.  I’ll prove it.

How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:

During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:

“… 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…” (2nd para) [boldface added]

Vattel’s Law of Nations was thereafter “pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents.”

Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment.2 Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:

“From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence.  In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”(page xxx) [emphasis added]

In footnote 1 on the same page (xxx), Lapradelle writes:

“… Another copy was presented by Franklin to the Library Company of Philadelphia. Among the records of its Directors is the following minute: “Oct. 10, 1775. Monsieur Dumas having presented the Library with a very late edition of Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations (in French), the Board direct the secretary to return that gentle-man their thanks.” This copy undoubtedly was used by the members of the Second Continental Congress, which sat in Philadelphia; by the leading men who directed the policy of the United Colonies until the end of the war; and, later, by the men who sat in the Convention of 1787 and drew up the Constitution of the United States, for the library was located in Carpenters’ Hall, where the First Congress deliberated, and within a stone’s throw of the Colonial State House of Pennsylvania, where the Second Congress met, and likewise near where the Constitution was framed …” [emphasis added]

So!  Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal Convention of 1787. 3

Vattel on “natural born citizens”, “inhabitants”, and “naturalized citizens”:

From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens.1  We needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizens.  Vattel provided these new republican concepts of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213:  Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization.  In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law.  And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are citizens. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

Do you see?  The republican concept of “natural born citizenship” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subjectship.” Under feudalism, merely being born in the domains of the King made one – by birth – a “natural born subject”.  But in Vattel’s Model and Our Constitutional Republic, Citizens are “natural born” only if they are born of Citizens.

How Our Framers applied Vattel’s Concept of “natural born citizen” in Our Constitution:

The Federal Convention was in session from May 14, through September 17, 1787.  John Jay, who had been a member of the Continental Congress [where they “pounced” on Vattel], sent this letter of July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who presided over the Convention:

“…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 devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”4

According, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 was drafted to read:

“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.” [boldface added]

In § 214, Vattel states that “fundamental law” may withhold from naturalized citizens some of the rights of citizens, such as holding public office. The Constitution is our “fundamental law”; and, following Vattel, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 withholds from naturalized citizens (except for our Founding Generation which was “grandfathered in”) the right to hold the office of President.5

Remember! None of our early Presidents were “natural born Citizens”, even though they were all born here. They were all born as subjects of the British Crown. They became naturalized citizens with the Declaration of Independence. That is why it was necessary to provide a grandfather clause for them. But after our Founding Generation was gone, their successors were required to be born as citizens of the United States – not merely born here (as were our Founders), but born as citizens.

And do not forget that the children born here of slaves did not become “citizens” by virtue of being born here. Their parents were slaves; hence (succeeding to the condition of their parents) they were born as slaves. They did not become citizens until 1868 and ratification of the 14th Amendment – which transformed them into “naturalized citizens”.

So!  Do you see?  If our Framers understood that merely being born here were sufficient to confer status as a “natural born citizen”; it would not have been necessary to grandfather in our first generation of Presidents; and all the slaves born here would have been “natural born citizens”. But they were born as non-citizen slaves, because their parents were non-citizen slaves.

David Ramsay’s 1789 Dissertation on Citizenship:

David Ramsay was an historian, Founding Father, and member of the Continental Congress  [REMEMBER: This is where they “pounced” on Vattel], whose Dissertation On The Manner Of Acquiring The Character And Privileges Of A Citizen Of The United States was published in 1789, shortly after ratification of our Constitution and the Year the new Government began.

It is an interesting dissertation and only 8 pages long. At the bottom of his page 6, Ramsay states:

“The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.” [modernized spelling & emphasis are mine]

Do you see?  Ramsay’s Dissertation sets forth the understanding of the Time, formally stated by Vattel and incorporated by our Framers, that a “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of citizens.  And we had no “citizens” until July 4, 1776.

Now, let us look at the First Congress. ...

Excerpt: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@IsailedawayfromFR

I see your point.  This one would end up before the Supreme Court for sure.  An examination of intent would likely be the deciding factor.  Was the intent to place a limit on how many terms one could serve?

Both Wilson and Truman set out running for a third term, but withdrew when it was clear they would not win their party's nomination.  But both also predated the 22nd Amendment's restrictions.

The Dems want to win at all costs, and Barak being on the ticket is the surest way they can try to get that win, regardless of who is at the top of the ticket.  And it is the way the Dems can attempt to preserve the down-ballot election seats as well.

Right now with such a weak bench strength, the Dems are facing losing the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and even more Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans.

As far as the Dems think, Barak is the healing power to help all America overcome the problems that currently exist, and the current problem with the blacks abandoning the Dems will melt away as they regroup under him.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@libertybele

The point that @IsailedawayfromFR is asking is 'What in the Constitution makes a person ineligible for the office of President'?  Amendment XXII outlines what makes a person ineligible to be "elected" President, but not 'be' President.

Personally, I agree with you that Obama is ineligible.  But there is enough ambiguity there to make this a Supreme Court case.

Exactly.

The 22nd only pertains to the election into the office of the President.

There are several other ways to become President that are not being elected into that office, such as the way Gerald Ford became POTUS.

[Elderberry]

[mountaineer]

^^^^^^
The many moods - and faces - of Joe.

[Hoodat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WabvabWvv8k

[Hoodat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgjm6xPJeaA

[corbe]

   I'm still unconvinced Trump/Vance can beat these evil, corrupt azzholes. 

   He barely beat the most hated Woman in American Politics and he lost to a dementia riddled man campaigning from his basement, 4 years later     

   We choose unwisely, again.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

   I'm still unconvinced Trump/Vance can beat these evil, corrupt azzholes. 

   He barely beat the most hated Woman in American Politics and he lost to a dementia riddled man campaigning from his basement, 4 years later     

   We choose unwisely, again.

They can't, and BTW no GOP candidates can, unless the Republican party accepts the responsibility for a clean election.

I have my doubts they can, or will with the likes of Raffensperger overseeing things.

GA Secretary Of State Office Communicating With County Elections Offices Via “FireFly” Application, Undisclosed To The Public
https://www.georgiarecord.com/elections/2024/07/29/exclusive-breaking-ga-secretary-of-state-office-communicating-with-county-elections-offices-via-firefly-app-undisclosed-to-the-public/