Bandimere shut down

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Eddies66

And all you have is “hear-say” and you know how that works in a court of law.

Not hear -say. It's called well documented evidence.
All one needs is the courage to look at it with an open mind...That leaves you out.

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Not hear -say. It's called well documented evidence.
All one needs is the courage to look at it with an open mind...That leaves you out.

You know nothing about me. Where is the evidence and why isn't it made public. I will always place the Constitution and the law above opinions...even yours. Harvard and Cornell Law is where I do my "google" research to prove my hypothesis, I don't get my information from Fox News or a transmission shop in the middle of the Arizona Desert. Stay out of the heat and be safe. This discussion has evolved back to the previous President and not the recently selected VP, who by the way was born in Oakland, CA, you have the proof with the birth certificate I provided...of the soil, Mark, of the soil.

[Mark Yacavone]

I see Fox is up to their old tricks again...covering up for non- Natural Born Citizens again, just like they did for Obame...Nowhere in their front page piece this AM, do they mention Natural Born Citizen, which is the crux of the matter



SEC. 316. [8 U.S.C. 1427]
(a) No person, except as otherwise provided in this title, shall be naturalized, unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

So it’s evident Harris’s parents weren’t U.S. citizens at the time of her birth. Thus she is ineligible to the offices of president and vice-president.

For both, the Constitution says one must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, a deliberately higher standard than simple citizenship.

As stated in Minor vs. Happersett, by Bingham, Ramsey and in Vattel, to be a natural born citizen one needs to be born on US soil to TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS.

Remember, if it takes an act of Congress as the 14th clearly is, for one to be a citizen, then they are a naturalized citizen.

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

I see Fox is up to their old tricks again...covering up for non- Natural Born Citizens again, just like they did for Obame...Nowhere in their front page piece this AM, do they mention Natural Born Citizen, which is the crux of the matter



SEC. 316. [8 U.S.C. 1427]
(a) No person, except as otherwise provided in this title, shall be naturalized, unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his application has been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2) has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application up to the time of admission to citizenship, (3) during all the periods referred to in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

So it’s evident Harris’s parents weren’t U.S. citizens at the time of her birth. Thus she is ineligible to the offices of president and vice-president.

For both, the Constitution says one must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, a deliberately higher standard than simple citizenship.
The Court first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization" and that the Constitution "does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." Under the common law, according to the court, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth, by Bingham, Ramsey and in Vattel, to be a natural born citizen one needs to be born on US soil to TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS.

Remember, if it takes an act of Congress as the 14th clearly is, for one to be a citizen, then they are a naturalized citizen.

Not a good case to prove your point...here the rest of the story.



The Court first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization" and that the Constitution "does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." Under the common law, according to the court, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.

[Eddies66]

Here is a little more recent case, not one that is over a hundred years old and is addressing the right to vote for women.


In their complaint, the Plaintiffs appear to suggest that the Governor has a duty to determine a person's eligibility to become President in issuing the "Certificate of Ascertainment" "officially appointing the electors" who cast the State of Indiana's votes in the Electoral College, the body which decides the election for the President of the United State. The case studies both the citizenship McCain and Obama with regards to their eligibility to run for President.



https://www.courtlistener.com/opinio...te-of-indiana/

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Eddies66

Not a good case to prove your point...here the rest of the story.


—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.

Herefore Minor was a NBC...KH is not.

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

Herefore Minor was a NBC...KH is not.

Did you even read the whole case, even if Minor was born on US soil she is still a "natural born citizen". The Court compared both circumstances...quit reading what you want that fits your agenda and hell with the rest. Do you have a clue what "critical thinking" is? Of the soil, Mark, of the soil.

[Mark Yacavone]

Originally Posted by Eddies66

Did you even read the whole case, even if Minor was born on US soil she is still a "natural born citizen". The Court compared both circumstances...quit reading what you want that fits your agenda and hell with the rest. Do you have a clue what "critical thinking" is? Of the soil, Mark, of the soil.

This is supposed to be your " critical thinking" determining factor?

"The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"

Funny stuff

[Mark Yacavone]

Source: http://www.aulawreview.org/natural-born-citizen/


There are two leading views of the original meaning of the constitutional requirement to be a “natural born Citizen” for presidential eligibility. The first, espoused most recently by Professors Einer Elhauge and Mary Brigid McManamon, is that a natural born citizen who is eligible to be President is any person born within the United States, unless the person is the child of a foreign ambassador or enemy soldier.[7] By the same token, any person born outside of the United States to a U.S. ambassador or to a U.S. soldier in a hostile army would also be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.[8] The idea that membership in a polity is determined principally by birthplace is known by the Latinism jus soli—the “law of soil.”[9] Proponents of this view assert that jus soli was the common law of England as to who was a “natural born subject,” and that the U.S. Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” requirement for presidential eligibility adopted the same English meaning.[10]

This viewpoint is wrong on both counts: jus soli was not the exclusive rule at English common law, and the English common law of natural born subjectship was not the exclusive source of the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. “Common law” in this context means the evolving customary law of England as reflected not only in judicial decisions, but also in landmark statutes. Further, early Americans also consulted treatises summarizing English law, most importantly William Blackstone’s Commentaries.[11]

First, jus soli may have been the ancient Anglo-Saxon common law before the Norman conquest of 1066, but it was not the sole principle of natural born subjectship at English common law when the U.S. Constitution was adopted centuries later. As historian James Kettner put it, “English jurists had no conscious attachment to the jus soli . . . . Ancestry could also determine who was a ‘natural-born subject.’”[12] In fact, starting in 1350, Parliament passed statutes bestowing subject status upon the foreign-born children of English subjects, thereby invoking the other great Western natural law birthright principle, jus sanguinis—the “law of blood” or parentage.[13] Jus sanguinis was the Roman rule of citizenship, and it was long dominant on the European continent with its shifting borders and overlapping allegiances.[14] But, jus sanguinis penetrated England and then Great Britain, especially in its eighteenth-century mercantilist phase, by which time Parliament had long extended “natural born” status to the foreign-born children of British subjects in government service and of British fathers generally.[15] Some of the most settled of these statutes, by virtue of their ancient and uncontroversial status, had become part of the common law tradition, not departures from it. However, descent by parentage had a gender skew under natural law in late eighteenth-century Europe and America: the father’s blood determined the political allegiance of free persons at birth; the mother was legally irrelevant.[16]

Second, although English common law was the principal source of U.S. constitutional law, it was not the only source. The common law was the taproot of U.S. constitutional provisions with an English pedigree like habeas corpus and the criminal and civil jury trial rights, but early Americans did not reflexively adopt the British law of natural born subjects in defining who was a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency. The British Empire had “subjects” whose allegiance to the Crown was viewed as analogous to a child’s obeisance to a parent, a bond the Americans had fought to escape.[17] “Citizens” of the American republic, by contrast, were seen as bound by explicit or implicit consent to a society of equals, analogous to a social contract.[18] The ramifications of this political-theory distinction between subject and citizen for “natural born” status are underappreciated. The concept of citizenship that Americans embraced attributed greater independence and agency to individuals to pass on their political allegiance, by contrast to subjectship which presumed that allegiance was solely a function of birth within the sovereign’s domains.