BUST: One-Third of Black Voters Say Kamala as VP Makes Them LESS Likely to Vote Democrat

White liberals in the media and Hollywood are ecstatic about Slow Joe Biden's VP choice of Kamala Harris.

Thousands of words have already been printed and Tweeted gushing about the "historic," "first Black woman" on the big ticket.

Leaving aside the facts that Harris is just 25% Black, had ancestors who owned a LOT of slaves, had NO ancestors who were slaves or lived through Jim Crow, and chose to be sworn in as "the first Indian-American Senator" -- will actual Black voters show the same enthusiasm as White leftists?

Virginius, I was rushing when I posted the comment you are responding to. It is not obvious because until Obama there had only been one very likely ineligible president, Chester Arthur, who, like Lois Lerner and Hillary, when he was close to death from some illness, burned all of his personal papers (thank you Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo for teaching us all). The Constitution. ...”Or a citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Chis Constitution” was necessary since the first Presidents couldn’t have been born to citizens before the Declaration we were British subjects. Beginning in 1787, subtract 35 from 1787. So the first 35 year old candidate was born on or before 1752. He lived through the revolution and was offered the option to pledge allegiance to the United States or remain British. Since the only citizens were natural born citizens until after 1866 (Article 1 Section 8, The first states each had their own constitutions and had different rules for naturalization (non-uniform), and everyone knew that slaves needed to be included. That is much of why it took so long to pass the 14th Amendment. Virtually any citizen of a state who participated in the revolution was offered citizenship, but no natural born citizenships until that early citizen married a citizen, making their children natural born if born on sovereign soil. None of this applies to Kamala, or Barack, or Cruz, or Haley, or Jindal, or Rubio.

“An Uniform Rule for Naturalization” clarified citizens, so there was a formula to try to fulfil the need for a chief executive whose sole allegiance was to the 1787 Constitution. Other “States”, like France, Spain, Italy, Britain, ...had different rules. The most concise explanations for the differences between Subjects and Citizens is in David Ramsey’s, “Dissertation on ... acquiring the privileges of a Citizen”, and in Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man”. Pat 2 “Of Constitutions”.

McCain had a different problem. Obama and McKaskill tried to fix this in January 2008 with Senate Bill 2678. It would have amended the Constitution, which is not legal, and didn’t pass. So Larry Trive revived an act passed by the 1st Congress, granting natural born citizenship to the chidden of U.S. officials born “beyond the seas”. Larry cited that as the reason McCain should be “reputed” a natural born citizen. But Larry conveniently omitted the footnote to the Citizenship Act, not mentioning that it had been completely reversed a couple of Congresses later, probably because Congress can’t rewrite the Constitution without an amendment or convention. This omission is found in the letter to the Senate by Tribe and Ted Olson supporting Senate Res 511, which had no force of law anyway. So Larry is just doing what progressive do so well, muddying the waters by authoritatively lying, presuming few people have actually read the Constitution, including few Lawyers, for whom business law is much more rewarding.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.