Kamala Harris enters 2020 presidential race

Washpo ^ | 1-21-2019 | Matt Viser

[mlo]

"That is where you have it wrong.... FRiend. You need to read up on this."

I'm not wrong, and I've read more on this than is justified. It's an issue been kicking around for a decade now.

You can read a lot about many wrong-headed ideas. It's not how much you can read, it's what you read. This is silly birther nonsense and there is no basis for it in the law. If you're born in the US you are a natural born citizen. End of story. That has always been the case.

The phrase to the founder meant the same as a "natural born subject" meant to Englishmen. Just substitute "citizen" for "subject".

[DMZFrank]

Again, the only relevant question here is NOT strictly speaking, NBC. Indians born in the US under tribal jurisdiction were not citizens until 1924, EVEN after passage of the 14th amendment. The question is what the framers intended NBC to mean with regard to eligibility for assuming the office of POTUS. NBC has no other constitutional applicability. Most importantly, the SCOTUS has never directly ruled on this issue.

The framers themselves were not NBC’s. They had to install a grandfather clause in Article II to make themselves eligible to the presidency, even though they founded the nation and won it’s revolution.

Think of all trees being plants, but not all plants are trees.

[John S Mosby]

You are simply wrong— especially in the kamala ding dong case. Neither parents are US citizens or were US citizens, and no proper use of the “5 years in the country before birthing crapola either”. This is not going to fly. No matter, the biotch has a scummy enough mobbed up past to eliminate early on, as does Julian Castro.

Please explain to me how, if the child of two native born US citizens,is born IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY— they are not ever, never a citizen of that country. We will bring our standards up to the “globalist” one, instead of having their “leavening” standards applied to us. That game is over.

The usage of the post Civil War Amendment is improper. And this WILL be addressed. We aren’t allowing another obamaumao put up job from the Hawaii (former territory, favourite for redocumenting foreign agents, including Soviet/Russian ones, with fake birth certificates. We’ve seen that episode.

[John S Mosby]

You certainly must know that... in the specifics, the Founders were interested in NOT having a President who had direct loyalties and fealties to Britain— for just that case, and because the inordinate number of Tories still in country, living “sub rosa”. That is, those who did not flee to the Bahamas (like Howe did— have seen the ruin of the loser’s house on Cat Island— sheep live there now), or were not properly strung up by Americans.

The actions of the French Ambassador Edmond-Charles Genêt come to mind— and his illegal stirring up of the young US countryman to act against the monarchy that supported our Revolution (to their financial and personal detriment, and which also nearly had Lafayette guillotined).

NBC applies most importantly to the Office of the Chief Executive with much power. SCOTUS needs to rule- and especially when we have the court properly Constitutionally balanced and not staffed with the “pesky living document” frauds and RBG.

[BTerclinger]