Vivek Ramaswamy’s 2024 POTUS campaign

acptulsa said:
In your head? Damned right I am, thank God.



"Give unto Caesar what is of Caesar," said Jesus, "and give unto God what is of God."

And the arrogant fundie said, "Um, excuse me, Teacher, but that can't be right because God says Caesar is of God..."

*highly localized thunder and lightning*
Click to expand...

A government is not the same as every government.

Nobody buys your spin.
 
Intrepid said:
You're dropping facts out of your a$$ faster than Amber Heard. Point to something that supports this claim.

I'm kinda blown away by the fact that the Supreme Court apparently has never made a definitive ruling on this:
Click to expand...

That article proves that claim.
 
Swordsmyth said:
That is not what the ruling in that case says.
Click to expand...
@Snowball - Swordsmyth has a point Snowball. I just did some digging thru the actual 14th Amendment, including the Wong case, and there's a lot about being a citizen but I cannot find the words "natural born" or anything close anywhere.

You need to point us to the actual verbatim words that you think makes your point.

Otherwise, we get back to my point that the Supreme Court HAS NEVER spelled it out explicitly... Instead has passed the buck to Congress to decide.

14th Amendment:
https://constitution.congress.gov/b...e shall make or,equal protection of the laws.

United States versus Wong Kim Ark:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep169/usrep169649/usrep169649.pdf
 
Intrepid said:
@Snowball - Swordsmyth has a point Snowball. I just did some digging thru the actual 14th Amendment, including the Wong case, and there's a lot about being a citizen but I cannot find the words "natural born" or anything close anywhere.

You need to point us to the actual verbatim words that you think makes your point.

Otherwise, we get back to my point that the Supreme Court HAS NEVER spelled it out explicitly... Instead has passed the buck to Congress to decide.

14th Amendment:
https://constitution.congress.gov/b...e shall make or,equal protection of the laws.

United States versus Wong Kim Ark:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep169/usrep169649/usrep169649.pdf
Click to expand...
I read that and probably came away with the Wong Answer.
 
PAF said:
I'm not spending much time on it, but if I come across anything...

You sound like Fed.gov, deciding what parents should decide. Nope, not a gun-grabber, my offspring learned how to shoot well before the age of 18.

I don't have a problem with getting rich at all. But if a car salesman dumps 4 quarts of oil-thickening-additives into an engine to hide the knocking and sells it to me, you can bet your ass I'm not going to be happy about it. Selling failed, remarketed drugs is the same thing. Sounds like you support the Prep Act and Operation Warp Speed. You disapprove of accountability.

Taken from the socialists handbook, if communism doesn't work, try, try again. I also remember when Obamacare passed... the republicans didn't want to eliminate it - they wanted "repeal and replace".

True colors. You support the Police State. "Good intention always lead to bad consequences." I believe Ron Paul said that more than several times. My solution is to have every teacher who wants to be armed, be armed, and forget Federal everything. As to how to fix the mass shootings? Stop prescribing psych drugs to kids that the Pharm Complex is passing out like candy and start raising children responsibly.

Oh, and as far as that "thought experiment" goes?

jester1.gif


How about actually cut spending, eliminate 3-letter agencies such as the FBI and don't replace it with Police Apparatus anything, and reduce/eliminate taxes, instead of rolling FedDeptEd money over to 3 LEO in every school.
Click to expand...
Why do you hate America?
 
Intrepid said:
@Snowball - Swordsmyth has a point Snowball. I just did some digging thru the actual 14th Amendment, including the Wong case, and there's a lot about being a citizen but I cannot find the words "natural born" or anything close anywhere.

You need to point us to the actual verbatim words that you think makes your point.

Otherwise, we get back to my point that the Supreme Court HAS NEVER spelled it out explicitly... Instead has passed the buck to Congress to decide.

14th Amendment:
https://constitution.congress.gov/b...e shall make or,equal protection of the laws.

United States versus Wong Kim Ark:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep169/usrep169649/usrep169649.pdf
Click to expand...

It does make my point. The Court ruled that Wong was a citizen by birth in the U.S., and the majority (6) opinion was that he was a natural born citizen by light of the prior definitions of such in England, because the founders did not expressly or exactly define the term "natural born citizen", and the English common law was identical to the Court ruling, that, and I paraphrase, unless the father was from a country AT WAR with England, or otherwise a FOREIGN OFFICIAL, BY BIRTH, the child was a natural-born English subjects. Subject to the Crown IS citizen, because Britain didn't have citizens. It had subjects. Hence, the distinction in the Constitution, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is added to further define "natural-born citizen", just like in the 2nd Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was attached to the subsequent and leading phrase, "a well-regulated militia". Attempts to cordon off and separate meanings within Constitutional sentences are NOT originalist in any way. Those attempts as in this case are NOT what the founders wanted. They wanted their sentences as whole laws, in each instance affirming, and not to be broken into different distinctions. So, 2nd Amendment defenders need to be consistent, or it could be used against them. If you look even at the two dissents, they don't claim that Wong isn't a citizen by birth. They claim that the government 1) is not restricted or forced to automatically consider infants born in the U.S. to be citizens by right of birth alone, and 2) the POTUS and Senate can make treaties between individual nations concerning this treatment.
So, since Wong was deemed a citizen AT BIRTH by the Court, he has all the rights of a citizen, including POTUS. The apprehension of the Court not to "define" natural-born citizen vis-a-vis "citizen" is due to the fact that there is no distinction in treatment. Citizens are citizens. To be a citizen is a legal treatment. To be a "natural-born" citizen is an adjective describing the verb/methodology of obtaining citizenship only, and the founders did not deem it necessary to distinguish (indeed, made it plainly the obtuse) between types of American citizens.
 
Occam's Banana said:
Debate Debrief with Vivek Ramaswamy | SYSTEM UPDATE #137
https://rumble.com/v3bbaej-system-update-show-137.html
Click to expand...

//
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
No, Vivek Ramaswamy, a Libertarian-Nationalist Alliance Doesn't Make Sense
Replies
6
Views
517
familydog
F
Brian4Liberty
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: The DOGE Plan to Reform Government
2 3
Replies
49
Views
8K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Occam's Banana
The officially **official** 2024 Election Day(s) results thread [Live Streams]
8 9 10
Replies
185
Views
18K
unknown
unknown
PAF
Billionaire Bill Ackman’s Plan to ‘Educate’ America’s Next Elite
Replies
3
Views
100
unknown
unknown
PAF
Manufacturing Consent: The Border Fiasco and the “Smart Wall”
Replies
0
Views
24
PAF
PAF
Back
Top