Fogbow

P&E: The nbC Eligibility Brainwashing Runs Deep

Joe Leland* wrote:

'DeMaio' wrote:On April 11, 1862 …Bingham rose on the House floor in support of such a proposed amendment. … “all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens.

In the beginning of the same paragraph, Rep. Bingham says,

Bingham wrote:The Constitution leaves no room for doubt about this subject. The word ‘natural-born citizen of the United States’ occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that ‘Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.’ To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth – natural-born citizens.

Does the author agree with Congressman Bingham that “citizens by birth” are natural-born citizens?

'DeMaio' wrote:The answer is: “As the question is posed, no, but with explanatory qualifications.”

* * *

In order to reconcile what might be seen as (or suggested to be) an inconsistency between Congressman Bingham’s statements as noted in the comment and as set out in your servant’s post, one needs to read the entire paragraph containing his remarks. Specifically, after first stating that “[t]hose born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth – natural-born citizens…,” Bingham thereafter added that the term nbC meant that, whether black or white, the person had to have been born to “parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty….” Clearly, when he referred to a “citizen by birth” as being an nbC, it was conditioned by a recognition that the nbC was a person born here to parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty: two U.S. citizen parents.

* * *

Bingham believed – correctly – that an nbC was a person born here to two U.S. citizen parents who possessed undivided allegiance to the United States alone. While the 14th Amendment affects all “citizens,” including nbC’s, it neither creates nbC’s nor does it alter the definition or meaning of the term as understood by Congressman John Bingham or as the Founders intended when they adopted it in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution.

BUT WAS HE EVER ELIGIBLE?

In the wake of the results of the 2024 Iowa Republican caucuses Monday evening, presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy announced he would suspend his campaign and endorsed fellow candidate, former president and leading Republican primary contender Donald J. Trump.

* * *

In an interview with NBC News last fall, Ramaswamy revealed his parents, though present in the U.S. lawfully, were not naturalized at the time of his birth in Cincinnati, OH in 1985, an eligibility requirement some scholars believe the Framers of the Constitution imposed . . . .

On January 8, Trump reposted on TruthSocial a graphic from an article published by The Gateway Pundit summarizing the findings of law clerk, 2022 John Marshall Fellow, Trump-administration intern and commentator Paul Ingrassia stating unequivocally of Haley, whose birth circumstances mirror Ramaswamy’s, “The Constitution Absolutely Prohibits Nikki Haley From Being President Or Vice President.”

* * *

The mainstream media immediately excoriated Trump for revitalizing “birther” claims which he once focused on Barack Hussein Obama regarding his then-missing “birth certificate.”

On April 27, 2011, the Obama White House released what it said was Obama’s “long-form” birth certificate allegedly proving he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

* * *

Mike Zullo, a former detective who conducted a 5+-year investigation into the birth-certificate image and found it to be fraudulent, reported more than five years ago and again this month that it remains an “open secret” in Washington, DC that Obama “was not born in this country and that the birth certificate was manufactured.”

* * *

As legal scholar Joseph DeMaio has referenced over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has not issued an opinion concerning the definition of ”natural born Citizen,” choosing rather to “evade” it after questions arose, beginning in 2007 and culminating in numerous legal challenges, as to Obama’s eligibility.

P&E: nbC Comment Merits Response

Jonathan David Mooers wrote:So, does this mean that parents of an “nbC” must be born-sole-U.S.-citizens and not naturalized-U.S.-citizens who also posses non-renounced foreign-citizenship(s)? In other words, can an nbC have parents with dual citizenships, such as a parent legally naturalized to be a U.S. citizen, while at the same time, fully retaining, say, a parent’s [born in Norway] Norwegian-citizenship?

'DeMaio' wrote:As a prefatory point prior to what follows, P&E readers must understand that your humble servant’s views on the nbC issue are his and his alone.

Fast-forwarding to the present, the Mooers question remains: if a presidential (or 12th Amendment vice-presidential) candidate is the offspring of two parents, one or both of whom are “dual citizens” or “dual-nationals” of the United States and a foreign nation, will that be a disqualifying event?

In all candor, your humble servant cannot give a categorical answer . . . .

THEN WHY ARE WE HERE??!?

Such a circle jerk.

Reality Check wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 11:26 am I've have been lurking over in the comments at Paul Ingrassia's Substack. The Birther's there are every bit as stupid as the ones at the P&E.

Toward the end of an 8+-minute interview Wednesday with law clerk, writer and legal scholar Paul Ingrassia, “War Room” host Steve Bannon pledged to “get into” the subject of the Constitution’s Article II, Section 1, clause 5 presidential requirement of “natural born Citizen.”

* * *

With 7:30 left in the segment, Bannon changed the subject with, “You’ve also written a very controversial piece about natural born Citizens. I don’t have time to take it up today, but it is a [sic] quite big topic that we’ve gotta get into, so we’re going to have you back…”

Reality Check wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2024 11:26 am I've have been lurking over in the comments at Paul Ingrassia's Substack. The Birther's there are every bit as stupid as the ones at the P&E.

https://paulingrassia.substack.com/p/th ... -prohibits

President Trump’s legal team – or, ideally, the Republican National Committee – should file a lawsuit to automatically challenge Nikki Haley’s eligibility for President. It is clear, based on the original understanding of natural-born citizenship, that Haley is ineligible to serve as President – as well as Vice President, under the Twelfth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark results in more questions than answers, particularly on the fundamental issue of Presidential Eligibility.

I take on clients who need representation and can’t find it through traditional sources which are loath to de-rail their career trajectories by associating with unpopular individuals.

DrConspiracy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 5:50 pm Remember Larry Sinclair? Well Montgomery Blair Sibley says he's representing Sinclair in some unspecified thing, so reports the Washington Examiner. News conference at the Nation Press Club on Wednesday.

I take on clients who need representation and can’t find it through traditional sources which are loath to de-rail their career trajectories by associating with unpopular individuals.

DrConspiracy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 5:50 pm Remember Larry Sinclair? Well Montgomery Blair Sibley says he's representing Sinclair in some unspecified thing, so reports the Washington Examiner. News conference at the Nation Press Club on Wednesday.

I take on clients who need representation and can’t find it through traditional sources which are loath to de-rail their career trajectories by associating with unpopular individuals.

neonzx wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 5:54 pm

DrConspiracy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 5:50 pm Remember Larry Sinclair? Well Montgomery Blair Sibley says he's representing Sinclair in some unspecified thing, so reports the Washington Examiner. News conference at the Nation Press Club on Wednesday.

I take on clients who need representation and can’t find it through traditional sources which are loath to de-rail their career trajectories by associating with unpopular individuals.

Oh no, not him again.
Back in the day, MB Sibley was asked by a reporter why he was wearing a kilt. It's because of the size of his manhood.

bob wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 5:57 pm
That article is from 2008, when Sibley originally represented Sinclair.

I don't believe Sibley has regained his license.

DrConspiracy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 12:26 pm
Wonder why Google sent me an alert. Oh well, never mind.

DrConspiracy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 5:50 pm Remember Larry Sinclair? Well Montgomery Blair Sibley says he's representing Sinclair in some unspecified thing, so reports the Washington Examiner. News conference at the Nation Press Club on Wednesday.

I take on clients who need representation and can’t find it through traditional sources which are loath to de-rail their career trajectories by associating with unpopular individuals.

Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 2:36 pm
If you ask birthers Sinclair has been dead for about a decade.

Dr. Ken wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 2:36 pm If you ask birthers Sinclair has been dead for about a decade.

northland10 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 2:03 pmYou need a handgun for shooting animals?

bob wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 3:18 pm

northland10 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 2:03 pmYou need a handgun for shooting animals?

Sibley claimed he was hired to be a pest-control specialist, and that a handgun was a necessary tool.

'DeMaio' wrote:Your humble servant has on several prior occasions made some hypothetical “modest proposals” here at The P&E…, none of which has thus far come to fruition. That aside, here is another one, but not – ** sigh of relief ** – on the nbC “presidential eligibility” issue.