Freudian Slips - Supreme Court

Trump CO ballot case. Twice during oral arguments, two different justices (if I heard who was speaking correctly) dropped the phrase "natural born citizen" - even though Trump's case is not about citizenship at all. It was about engaged in insurrection…. so why drop natural born citizen?

Arguments in part centered around timing. At what point in time is it appropriate to challenge whether or not someone is eligible to be president?

I found the slips interesting, potentially revealing what is on their mind in terms of a larger issue besides Trump. Many of the challenges to Obama being qualified went nowhere. Some were frivolous arguments. There were two cases that involved the "natural born citizen" argument. One was in the NE and tossed out on a technicality; the other was in TN, with the Judge seemingly suddenly ruling against the case for a b.s. reason. The issues of "natural born citizen" remains unresolved.

Yet, the Supremes twice dropped the phrase in oral arguments. Why? Timing.

Trump's attorney argued that the correct timing is after someone has won the general election, before they are sworn in. (Obama's natural born citizen challenges came in after he was sworn in, if memory serves me correctly.)

So what is on deck now? Kamala Harris is not a natural born citizen.

Dems realize Biden can not be their candidate; they need to remove him, because he isn't withdrawing. The media has started to mentally prepare the public that Biden isn't going to be their candidate. Maybe. Other MSM op eds lean towards leaving Biden in thru the end of this term.

If Biden removed via 14th, enter Kamala.

Recently a MSM article explained the process. It doesn't happen in a blink of an eye. Congress (or whoever) votes to remove via 14th. Biden has X (2?) number of days to agree/dispute. If disputed, it goes back to Congress, Back and forth a few times. Process can take a couple of weeks or more.

Kamala not consitutionally qualified. The back and forth time period - might provide the window to get a decision on natural born citizen - and challenge Kamala's eligibility. It would restore (yet again) the US Constitution provisions.

Any lawfags around to discuss?

>>20405983

PS - it Biden removed, and Harris removed by being not qualified - that puts the Speaker of the House as POTUS.

Hmmmm

>>20406023

>>20405983

Thanks.

I think this argument, this plan, has been in the works for a very long time. Since Obama was sworn in. After swearing in, all cases fail. I know one person in intel who told me everyone knew Obama wasn't eligible.

This now makes me wonder if the good guys led the corrupt into a trap by holding the J6 rally, knowing the corrupt would plot a false flag. That would cue up the "engaged in insurrection" argument to prevent Trump from being sworn in if Pence had gone along with the alternate electors. (T/B/D did Pence fall on a sword for the good of the country, to expose just how bad things would be with Dems in control…. or was Pence corrupt all along.)

Was there a hidden hand that guided Biden into choosing Kamala, thereby finally cueing up the current state of affairs leading us to a Supreme Court decision, finally….

>>20406023

>>20405983

Natural born citizenship discussed in Federalist Papers. A requirement for both POTUS and VPOTUS.

Trump did start down that Obama "birther" issue (as the media loves to characterize it) when he was considering running against Obama in 2012. Then he dropped it. In retrospect, that was probably also strategic to set up the legal battle down the road (hopefully soon!)

I thought several years ago that maybe QTeam wasn't ready, needed some more chess pieces to be moved before Trump ran for office. I did send on a note to I forget who, to get to Trump to argue the natural born citizen angle, probably back when the "birther" issue statements were going on.

The TN case was well presented. The lawyer in the case had (maybe still does have) a website with a lot of info on natural born citizenship.

And for you assholes out there saying no citizenship requirements….

US Const Article 1, Section 2

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and beenseven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

US Const Art 1 Section 3

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and beennine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Rep & Senators don't have to be born in the country, but they have to have become US citizens - i.e. naturalized.

Different text for POTUS

Article 2, Section 1

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.

>>20406094

>>20406023

I stand corrected on Ramaswamy.

I have seen elsewhere both parents became citizens, but I just found an article where he states his father never became a citizen.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/vivek-ramaswamy-shares-familys-citizenship-story-shaped-two-hardline-p-rcna107981

"In a sit-down interview Tuesday,Ramaswamy noted that his father is not a U.S. citizen and never took the test. “He did not. And that’s a choice that he has made for familial reasons,” Ramaswamy said.

“But my mother did,” he continued, explaining that she took the test and completed the process after he was born. “And I think that every immigrant who comes to this country in order to become a full voting citizen has to do the same.”