• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Kamala Does Not Qualify to be Vice President

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,540
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Its interesting that people confuse the distinction in the Constitution between a citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. The Constitution allows any "Citizen" to hold any office except the Executive Offices of President and Vice President and requires those who hold those two offices to be "Natural Born Citizens."

A person can be born a citizen or be naturalized as a citizen. A Natural Born Citizen holds a specified distinction in citizenship.

A subject is a person under the authority of the US government whether citizen or not.
Do you have any case law to support that theory?

I believe I made it very clear, A person born on the soil of the United States is a Natural Born Citizen. The supreme court has made that very clear. In other words, there is no distinction between a person born on the soil of the United States and a Natural Born Citizen.

If I missed your point, please explain.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Do you have any case law to support that theory?

I believe I made it very clear, A person born on the soil of the United States is a Natural Born Citizen. The supreme court has made that very clear. In other words, there is no distinction between a person born on the soil of the United States and a Natural Born Citizen.

If I missed your point, please explain.
I’ll tell you what you missed. You missed the line when brains were being handed out!

This is the type of analysis you get when you take your legal advice from the fake internet lawyers at the kiddie table.

Analogy: Most swimming pools have a kiddie end and a deep end. When dealing with a formidable opponent, you usually have to take him to the deep end of the pool to drown him. But in this case, watch how I drown this cretin at the kiddie end of the pool. No need to go to the deep end with “subject to the jurisdiction” arguments for this mental midget.

No US court or law has EVER said that being born on US soil ALONE is enough to confer citizenship (natural or otherwise) upon an individual! I CHALLENGE YOU TO PUT UP OR STFU! SHOW US THE CASE OR LAW THAT UNEQUIVOCALLY STATES THAT!

Ark does not say that! What Ark DOES SAY is that (1) a person born on US soil of (2) two non-citizen parents AND (3) at the time of his said birth his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein, AND (4) that during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, AND (5) that ever since the birth of said Wong Kim Ark, at the time and place hereinbefore stated and stipulated, he has had but one residence, to wit, a residence in said state of California, in the United States of America, and that he has never changed or lost said residence or gained or acquired another residence, was a natural born citizen of the US. Ark stands for the proposition that if you meet ALL 5 of those conditions, then, and only then, can you claim natural born citizenship.

Your simplistic reading of Ark needing to fulfill only 1 of those conditions for citizenship is only evidence of your simple kiddie mind!

Kamala’s parents do not meet the “permanent domicile” conditions established in Ark! Kamala’s parents do not meet the “business” requirements of Ark. Indeed, Kamala herself does not meet the “residency” requirements of Ark in #5 above. It is undisputed that she spent many of her childhood years in Canada!

Kamala’s case is not a close call. She is not qualified!

Go back to being in the fetal position and crying for the ghost of Grapeshot to save your sorry ass..
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,540
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I’ll tell you what you missed. You missed the line when brains were being handed out!

This is the type of analysis you get when you take your legal advice from the fake internet lawyers at the kiddie table.

Analogy: Most swimming pools have a kiddie end and a deep end. When dealing with a formidable opponent, you usually have to take him to the deep end of the pool to drown him. But in this case, watch how I drown this cretin at the kiddie end of the pool. No need to go to the deep end with “subject to the jurisdiction” arguments for this mental midget.

No US court or law has EVER said that being born on US soil ALONE is enough to confer citizenship (natural or otherwise) upon an individual! I CHALLENGE YOU TO PUT UP OR STFU! SHOW US THE CASE OR LAW THAT UNEQUIVOCALLY STATES THAT!

Ark does not say that! What Ark DOES SAY is that (1) a person born on US soil of (2) two non-citizen parents AND (3) at the time of his said birth his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein, AND (4) that during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, AND (5) that ever since the birth of said Wong Kim Ark, at the time and place hereinbefore stated and stipulated, he has had but one residence, to wit, a residence in said state of California, in the United States of America, and that he has never changed or lost said residence or gained or acquired another residence, was a natural born citizen of the US. Ark stands for the proposition that if you meet ALL 5 of those conditions, then, and only then, can you claim natural born citizenship.

Your simplistic reading of Ark needing to fulfill only 1 of those conditions for citizenship is only evidence of your simple kiddie mind!

Kamala’s parents do not meet the “permanent domicile” conditions established in Ark! Kamala’s parents do not meet the “business” requirements of Ark. Indeed, Kamala herself does not meet the “residency” requirements of Ark in #5 above. It is undisputed that she spent many of her childhood years in Canada!

Kamala’s case is not a close call. She is not qualified!

Go back to being in the fetal position and crying for the ghost of Grapeshot to save your sorry ass..
And you have a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
And you have a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
You have been exposed again for the fraud that you are. Don't you ever get tired of it?
e519339.gif
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,985
Location
here nc
Alas, the degradation and demeaning commentary towards members is completely unwarranted on the forum.

but, please, as previously expressed may you enjoy the holiday season to the best you are capable of.

cheers
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Alas, the degradation and demeaning commentary towards members is completely unwarranted on the forum.

but, please, as previously expressed may you enjoy the holiday season to the best you are capable of.

cheers

Don’t think for one moment that the forum does not see what is going on here.


Why don’t you ask your friend sitting next to you at the kiddie table for a cite to his absurd assertion that being born on US soil alone is enough to confer citizenship? I already have and all it elicited was a sarcastic response for a merry Christmas. Ducking the issue does not make it go away. It just renders your 15K plus combined posts meaningless, as well they obviously are to me and the rest of the unbiased forum members.


A word of advice in the spirit of Christmas. You and the rest of the kiddie table should go back to commenting in those meaningless threads about being able to shoot people in hypothetical situations. Leave the legal threads to the adults in the room who are able to carry on an adult conversation on the subject. It is unbecoming of your lot to be drowned in 2 inches of water at the kiddie end of the pool.


Should you choose to ignore my advice, be assured that I will always be there to make MY point; and the fact that I am able to crap on you in the process just becomes an added bonus. I do admit to thoroughly enjoying it.


Merry Christmas, cretin.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,985
Location
here nc
Alas again the playground taunting in attempt to boost your ego...best on the endeavour...

but it is pleasant knowing you are aware your ego is lacking...

cheers
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,540
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
What is a natural-born citizen? The supreme court has told you what it is.

In Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 521 (2000) the Supreme Court noted that the meaning of an undefined term in the Constitution “necessarily requires some explanation,” and that “the necessary explanation is derived from English common law well known to the Framers.” Quoting Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390 (1798).

Also see Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888), (The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.)

The supreme court looks to William Blackstone’s COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, Volume I, “Of the Rights of Persons” the premiere treatise on British law at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. Blackstone explained that “[t]he first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects,” and that the “natural” allegiance due of “natural-born” subjects “is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth.”

A number of Supreme Court cases have used the term “native born” citizen to indicate all of those children physically born in the country, without reference to parentage or lineage, and employed such term in reference to those citizens eligible to be President under the “natural born” citizenship clause, as opposed to “naturalized” citizens, who are not. See Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913); United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 649 (1929); United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U.S. 605 (1931); and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1963).

cocked&locked, the malefactor ambulance chaser he is, can only prove his fallacious sophistry by filing his lawsuit against Kamala Harris on January 21, 2021 challenging her standing to service as vice-president of the good old U.S.A. And when that lawsuit doesn’t materialize, or if it does, cocked&locked will be branded as the hustling con artist he truly is.

A minimum of just 32 days in having our answer.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
What is a natural-born citizen? The supreme court has told you what it is.

In Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 521 (2000) the Supreme Court noted that the meaning of an undefined term in the Constitution “necessarily requires some explanation,” and that “the necessary explanation is derived from English common law well known to the Framers.” Quoting Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 390 (1798).

Also see Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888), (The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.)

The supreme court looks to William Blackstone’s COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, Volume I, “Of the Rights of Persons” the premiere treatise on British law at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. Blackstone explained that “[t]he first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects,” and that the “natural” allegiance due of “natural-born” subjects “is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth.”

A number of Supreme Court cases have used the term “native born” citizen to indicate all of those children physically born in the country, without reference to parentage or lineage, and employed such term in reference to those citizens eligible to be President under the “natural born” citizenship clause, as opposed to “naturalized” citizens, who are not. See Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913); United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 649 (1929); United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U.S. 605 (1931); and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1963).

cocked&locked, the malefactor ambulance chaser he is, can only prove his fallacious sophistry by filing his lawsuit against Kamala Harris on January 21, 2021 challenging her standing to service as vice-president of the good old U.S.A. And when that lawsuit doesn’t materialize, or if it does, cocked&locked will be branded as the hustling con artist he truly is.

A minimum of just 32 days in having our answer.
FAIL

Only an idiot would look to Blackstone's comments about "British Subjects" as authority on American citizenship. BREAKING NEWS: We don't have a feudal society in this country; AND, we don't have a monarchy.

"Ark" is directly on point with the facts surrounding the Kamala situation. No need to go looking anywhere else.

I am finished responding to the nonsense coming from the kiddie table. You are free to believe their BS at your own peril!
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,540
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
FAIL

Only an idiot would look to Blackstone's comments about "British Subjects" as authority on American citizenship. BREAKING NEWS: We don't have a feudal society in this country; AND, we don't have a monarchy.

"Ark" is directly on point with the facts surrounding the Kamala situation. No need to go looking anywhere else.

I am finished responding to the nonsense coming from the kiddie table. You are free to believe their BS at your own peril!
Ha, Ha, Ha... The little wuss showed his true colors. He ain't going to file any lawsuit because he knows he will get a good old fashion ass whipping by the court. He is the biggest fraud I have ever read on this forum in 13 years. A con artist for sure. When it comes time to put-up the little wuss shuts-up. Ha, Ha, Ha...
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
FAIL

Only an idiot would look to Blackstone's comments about "British Subjects" as authority on American citizenship. BREAKING NEWS: We don't have a feudal society in this country; AND, we don't have a monarchy.

"Ark" is directly on point with the facts surrounding the Kamala situation. No need to go looking anywhere else.

I am finished responding to the nonsense coming from the kiddie table. You are free to believe their BS at your own peril!
The USSC referred to Blackstone...they do from time to time...
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Dr. Cocked&Locked writes like Madison and Hamilton. All the words have meaning. When you selectively only choose some of the words in the quote, you only demonstrate a basic lack of reading comprehension; not a deficiency in the quote.

The quote was NOT that Blackstone was not an authority, but rather that "only an idiot would look to Blackstone comments on British Subjects AS AUTHORITY ON AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP" (emphasis added).

The concept of British Subjects is totally different than the concept of American Citizenship. Blackstone died in 1780, ten years before the United States was even formed. Therefore, he could not possibly have EVER been commenting on American Citizenship. Therefore, you have to be that idiot that I referred to if you think he is an authority on that subject.

You have gone from being drowned in 2 inches of water at the kiddie end of the pool to being drowned on dry land. Can it possibly get any worse for the idiots around here? I guess only time will tell.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,540
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Dr. Cocked&Locked writes like Madison and Hamilton. All the words have meaning. When you selectively only choose some of the words in the quote, you only demonstrate a basic lack of reading comprehension; not a deficiency in the quote.

The quote was NOT that Blackstone was not an authority, but rather that "only an idiot would look to Blackstone comments on British Subjects AS AUTHORITY ON AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP" (emphasis added).

The concept of British Subjects is totally different than the concept of American Citizenship. Blackstone died in 1780, ten years before the United States was even formed. Therefore, he could not possibly have EVER been commenting on American Citizenship. Therefore, you have to be that idiot that I referred to if you think he is an authority on that subject.

You have gone from being drowned in 2 inches of water at the kiddie end of the pool to being drowned on dry land. Can it possibly get any worse for the idiots around here? I guess only time will tell.
You have been ratted out. Nothing more to say until you file your lawsuit on January 21, 2021 and you post it here on this forum. The clock is running.
 

American Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
253
Location
, ,
The quote was NOT that Blackstone was not an authority, but rather that "only an idiot would look to Blackstone comments on British Subjects AS AUTHORITY ON AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP" (emphasis added).

I agree. Blackstone wrote about subjects. There were many conquered countries under the British crown and they were subjects to the crown. That is what Blackstone was concerned with as the people were not looked on as citizens but subjects, even in Britain.

The earliest writings that dealt with the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" are found in Emmert de Vattel's "Law Of The Nations." He looks to that which is according to nature and Natural Law. He concluded that a child born to parents who were both citizen of the same country their child would be a citizen of the parents country by nature, i.e. Natural Law. Thus the child would be a Natural Born Citizen of the parents country. All other birth situations would of necessity need be addressed by statutes on men, i.e. governments, NOT by the God of Nature or Natural Law.

On edit: I forgot to to mention that during the formation of our government the founders had in their reference books copies of Vattel's "Law Of Nations" presented to them by Benjamin Franklin who also placed one copy in the nations library and kept a copy for himself.
 
Last edited:

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
You have been ratted out. Nothing more to say until you file your lawsuit on January 21, 2021 and you post it here on this forum. The clock is running.
Let me teach you a quick course that I will entitle "Law Office Protocol 101".

In the office, at the top of the food chain are people like me, the Managing Partner. You can address me as Dr. or Sir or Esquire (since you appear to be into medieval shit).

At the very bottom of the food chain are people like you and Solus, those designated to keep the bathrooms clean. They are usually addressed as housekeeping.

People like you don't have any input on if/when the office decides to file a lawsuit.

People like you and Solus are there only to keep the bathrooms clean.

So STFU and get those cigarette butts out of the urinal in the boy's room. And when you are finished, I need you and Solus to go over to the girl's room. The tampon machine needs re-stocking and the used sanitary napkins need to be taken out of the trash can.

And make sure the girl's room is empty before you two idiots enter. I don't need either of you two eunuchs causing a lawsuit for sexual harassment to be filed against my firm!
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,540
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Let me teach you a quick course that I will entitle "Law Office Protocol 101".

In the office, at the top of the food chain are people like me, the Managing Partner. You can address me as Dr. or Sir or Esquire (since you appear to be into medieval shit).

At the very bottom of the food chain are people like you and Solus, those designated to keep the bathrooms clean. They are usually addressed as housekeeping.

People like you don't have any input on if/when the office decides to file a lawsuit.

People like you and Solus are there only to keep the bathrooms clean.

So STFU and get those cigarette butts out of the urinal in the boy's room. And when you are finished, I need you and Solus to go over to the girl's room. The tampon machine needs re-stocking and the used sanitary napkins need to be taken out of the trash can.

And make sure the girl's room is empty before you two idiots enter. I don't need either of you two eunuchs causing a lawsuit for sexual harassment to be filed against my firm!
Nothing more to say until you file your lawsuit on January 21, 2021 and you post it here on this forum. The clock is running.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,540
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I agree. Blackstone wrote about subjects. There were many conquered countries under the British crown and they were subjects to the crown. That is what Blackstone was concerned with as the people were not looked on as citizens but subjects, even in Britain.

The earliest writings that dealt with the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" are found in Emmert de Vattel's "Law Of The Nations." He looks to that which is according to nature and Natural Law. He concluded that a child born to parents who were both citizen of the same country their child would be a citizen of the parents country by nature, i.e. Natural Law. Thus the child would be a Natural Born Citizen of the parents country. All other birth situations would of necessity need be addressed by statutes on men, i.e. governments, NOT by the God of Nature or Natural Law.

On edit: I forgot to to mention that during the formation of our government the founders had in their reference books copies of Vattel's "Law Of Nations" presented to them by Benjamin Franklin who also placed one copy in the nations library and kept a copy for himself.
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 10: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;”

This clause ONLY refers to treaties with other nations, treaties with the American Indian tribes, and nothing more, in referencing the “Law of Nations.”

Your idea that our founding fathers adopted the “Law of Nations” as their stance on what a “Natural Born Citizen” is, is misplaced. Section 212 of Vattel doesn’t mention “Natural Born Citizen” but from its reading could imply what a “Natural Born Citizen” is, but it also could only be referring to the “native born citizen.” Or even both being synonymous. Court decisions support that implication. And lineage has nothing to do with it either, as pointed out already.
THE LAW OF NATIONS

OR THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW
§ 212 The members of a civil society are its citizens. Bound to that society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they share equally in the advantages and it offers. Its natives are those who are born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society can not maintain and perpetuate itself except by the children of its citizens, these children naturally take on the status of their fathers and enter upon all the latter's rights. The society is presumed to desire this as the necessary means of its self-preservation, and it is justly to be inferred that each citizen, upon entering into the society, reserves to his children the right to be members of it. The country of a father is therefore that of his children, and they become true citizens by their mere tacit consent. We shall see presently whether, when arrived at the age of reason, they may renounce their right and the duty they owe to the society in which they are born. I repeat that in order to belong to a country one must be born there of a father who is a citizen; for if one is born of foreign parents, that land will only be the place of one's birth, and not one's country.

I believe your theory will not sell in Peoria.
 

American Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
253
Location
, ,
THE LAW OF NATIONS

OR THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW​
§ 212 The members of a civil society are its citizens. Bound to that society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they share equally in the advantages and it offers. Its natives are those who are born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society can not maintain and perpetuate itself except by the children of its citizens, these children naturally take on the status of their fathers and enter upon all the latter's rights. The society is presumed to desire this as the necessary means of its self-preservation, and it is justly to be inferred that each citizen, upon entering into the society, reserves to his children the right to be members of it. The country of a father is therefore that of his children, and they become true citizens by their mere tacit consent. We shall see presently whether, when arrived at the age of reason, they may renounce their right and the duty they owe to the society in which they are born. I repeat that in order to belong to a country one must be born there of a father who is a citizen; for if one is born of foreign parents, that land will only be the place of one's birth, and not one's country.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,540
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
....... I repeat that in order to belong to a country one must be born there of a father who is a citizen; for if one is born of foreign parents, that land will only be the place of one's birth, and not one's country.
What point are you trying to make, because that part underlined has no relevance in this country. Lineage is irreverent in determining if a person is a “Natural Born Citizen" or being a “native born citizen.”

And again The Law of Nations plays no part in American law in determining citizenship of persons being born on American soil.

Why do you keep raising this issue, because you have offered no case law to support your position.

Let me point out the the concept of citizenship within a particular country is one governed not by international law or Law of Nations, but rather is governed by the internal law of each country.
 
Last edited:
Top