Lawsuit Filed In Texas Claiming Kamala Harris Is Not A Natural Born Citizen

Here we go. I said these legal challenges were waiting in the wings. Kammie is an anchor baby. Not an NBC.

Others have made this correct point.

If Trump were to make an issue over eligibility - he’d likely lose the election.

My astutness is finely tuned. (or is it finally?). 😊👍 Thanks.

If Trump were to make an issue over eligibility - he’d likely lose the election.

I don't disagree.

I'm also not convinced Trump himself believes it (not that this really makes a difference).

Such a ruling would also ensure that four or his five children would be equally ineligible. And while Don Jr and Eric seem content with running the family business, I could see Barron being groomed for politics.

Wong was affirmed a citizen via the 14th amendment, not a natural born Citizen.

Long-winded but accurate. Pray that we are close, because Lady Liberty cannot handleuch more.

To rehash (yet again):

If the Framers did not intend for the phrase they put into the Constitution - Natural Born Citizen - to mean what it meant at the time they wrote it, they would have written out a definition into the Constitution to redefine it. Since they did not, we can only assume it meant what the phrase meant when they wrote it out - the English common law definition - those born within the borders of the realm are naturally born citizens. There are a number of court cases where it is defined in this manner with regard to those born with far looser connections to the United States than Marco Rubio, Chester Arthur, (or Kamala Harris). The first case where it seems this was dealt with by a court was Lynch vs. Clarke in New York over a dispute with who could inherit property - there was a law on the books stating that only a “U.S. Citizen” could inherit property, and the presiding judge (apparently in this court the judge was called a “Vice Chancellor”) made this declaration: “Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.” In another case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over the citizenship of a person born who was born to Chinese parents (it was illegal at that time for Chinese immigrants to become U.S. Citizens) it was declared that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, and Justice Field, who wrote the opinion, actually referenced the Lynch v. Clarke decision in the ruling of the Court: “After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.” This case was In re Look Tin Sing. Another U.S. Supreme Court case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 dealing with the same issue of a child born to Chinese parents made the same ruling and also declared him to be a natural born citizen in the ruling by virtue of his right to citizenship by birth. All of those cases were in the 1800s.

There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1939 with the title Perkins v. Elg http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/325.html which dealt with the issue of a woman who was born in the U.S. to Swedish citizens who returned to Sweden with her when she was four years old. Her father was naturalized prior to this as a U.S. Citizen and held dual citizenship. She then came back to the U.S. and was admitted entry as a citizen at the age of 21. For whatever reason, her father later did away with his U.S. Citizenship status and the equivalent of the INS at the time declared she was to be deported. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this, finding she was a natural born U.S. Citizen by right of birth and even declared she was eligible to be President of the United States in the ruling. A past President, Chester Arthur, was born with an Irish father who was not yet naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, though his mother was born in Vermont where Arthur himself was born.

Detractors like to ignore all of information and court cases and instead rely totally on a case Minor v. Happersett - seeming to deliberately misquote the ruling - indeed, the justices specifically stated they were not making a finding of every scenario that constitutes a natural born citizen in their ruling: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ***For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.***” Minor v. Happersett - full text of ruling https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162

but Texas has AG Paxton
that might make a difference

“Mainly because there are just too many people like you.”

Thank you for seeing that too.

Indeed, the search engines are guiding what people can see and read — and thereby they define and restrict what people are allowed to know.

It is extremely dangerous

“Realize that Cruz first said he was not eligible”

Complete bullshit, Cruz never said any such thing.

Are you sure that’s a bad thing? /s

Oh, come on, your source is not intellectually honest. Wong Kim Ark very explicitly refers to a case (Minor v Hapersett) finding that “natural-born citizen” means “citizen by birth” in the context of the 14th amendment, and uses that definition to base its ruling.

or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

That refers to people already living in the Colonies who became United States citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted. No "natural born citizens" under the constitution were born until after it was ratified.

Back to the thread, from the 134 Pac's about page:

"The 134 PAC is the leading voice for Texas Democrats and rural county parties in Texas. Our purpose is to advocate, connect and educate organizers, activists, candidates, and urban Democrats about the needs, difficulties and challenges of rural Democrats."

Then read the filing to the court (download file link). This is an amended filing to a case of other issues in Texas that was not about Harris in the original filing. The filing itself is a shotgun going over issues in Texas, a 1758 treatise on the law of nations as if it supersedes later Constitutional amendments and current US law (it doesn't and courts really do not like that kind of argument at all), adds in Bragg going after Trump and Harris as not an NBC.

The 134 Pac are Democrats, while submitting filings that read like Orly Taitz.

Thank you for referencing that article Macho MAGA Man.

"Lawsuit Filed In Texas Claiming Kamala Harris Is Not A Natural Born Citizen"

First, as a side note to this thread, consider that desperate Democrats panicked and declared Harris to be Democratic presidential nominee after OBiden did poorly in a debate with Trump. But this unilateral switcharoo with Harris by the Democratic elite is likely a HUGE constitutional problem imo.

More specifically, given the zero tolerance, "hair trigger" wording of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment (14A), that section a penalty for states where ballot box fraud has occurred, the votes of an official election, the primaries in this example, cannot be thrown out for any reason imo.

Excerpted from 14A:

"But when the right to vote at any election"
"is denied to any"
"or in any way abridged,"
"Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election [all emphases added] for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." [Apportionment of Representatives]
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Pence and the J6 Congress wrongly ignored Section 2 with respect to allegations of vote-counting fraud in 2020 elections imo.

Getting back to controversies concerning natural born citizen (NBC), I'm glad to see this legal action by Texas. But I question if plaintiffs have the right argument.

More specifically, political correct controversy (smoke and mirrors) concerning NBC is based on the fact that the Constitution doesn't define NBC, although the Constitution references Law of Nations, international law at the time, which defines it.

The problem with NBC is that the corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties seem to be taking advantage of the fact that, since it is not defined in the Constitution, they take the liberty to define it according to political party needs.

H O W E V E R ...

The reality about NBC (imo) is that Chief Justice John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, had officially noted three categories of law that the USA is based on, the short list including Law of Nations shown by the excerpt below.

Excerpted from the writings of Chief Justice John Jay:

"That you may percieve more clearly the Extent and objects of your Inquiries, it may be proper to observe that the Laws of the united States admit of being classed under three Heads or³ Descriptions—
"1^st. all Treaties made under the authority of the united States.
2^dly. The Laws of nations [emphasis added]—
3^dly. The Constitution, and Statutes of the united States—"
—John Jay’s Charge to the Grand Jury, the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, 22 May 1793

So while corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification political parties who have pirated control of the federal government are acting stupid about that "mysterious" NBC in the Constitution, you and I may know more about it then lawmakers do.

On the other hand, the political parties may be scamming us with the “undefined” NBC.

The constitutionally reality is that, since worthless career federal lawmakers and renegade states have repeatedly proven that they are enemies of the people imo, it is now up to Democratic and Republican Trump supporters to effectively "impeach and remove" ALL (exceptions?) state and federal lawmakers and executives in November.

In other words, it's now up to Democratic and Republican Trump supporters to support hopeful Trump 47 with a new, Constitution-respecting Congress, new state lawmakers too, not only so that he will not be a lame duck president from the first day of his second term, but will support him to quickly finish draining the swamp.

Finally, let's not allow the anti-Trump media try to fade our memories of what we witnessed on July 13.

What the Founders meant to do (and failed) was use the Old English concept of Natural Born Citizenship.

There was no citizenship in old English law. English law only dealt with subjects.

The word "citizen" didn't mean in the English of that era what it means today. It meant "Dweller in a City." Citizen was literally "city denizen." Someone who lived in a city.

What people are trying to do, is to apply the Old English common law (meaning there is no written law, it's just custom) regarding "subjects", to "Citizen", and claim "Citizen" is based on old English common law.

It isn't. It's based on Vattel. He is the guy who brought the concept to America with his book, "The Law of Nations."

Which means one must be born as a US citizen. AND both parents must also be born as US citizens.

The English common law only requires you to be born on the land of the King, and you are automatically his "Subject."

They are wrongfully applying the English common law regarding "Subjects", to "Citizen."

This is where all the mistakes have crept in to this issue.

Oh, come on, your source is not intellectually honest.

My source is the holding in the Wong Kim Ark decision. The Court talks about "natural born citizen" all throughout it's dicta, but in it's holding, they simply call him "citizen."

Wong Kim Ark very explicitly refers to a case (Minor v Hapersett) finding that “natural-born citizen” means “citizen by birth” in the context of the 14th amendment, and uses that definition to base its ruling.

Dicta. They didn't put "natural born" in the holding.

Dicta is just musing and thinking out loud by the court. Only the Holding has legal relevance.

If the Framers did not intend for the phrase they put into the Constitution - Natural Born Citizen - to mean what it meant at the time they wrote it, they would have written out a definition into the Constitution to redefine it. Since they did not, we can only assume it meant what the phrase meant -when they wrote it out - the English common law definition

This is where everyone gets it wrong. There *IS* no English common law definition for "Citizen." There is only a definition for "Subject."

"Citizen" has no place in English law. It didn't even mean then what it means now. I've looked up the word "Citizen" in the complete works of Blackstone, and if I recall properly, it was listed 5 times, and in each context, it refers to the "Citizen of London" or the citizen of some other town.

English Common law deals with *SUBJECTS*. You don't borrow a definition for *SUBJECTS* and then say "This is the definition for citizens."

That is wrong, incorrect, and people's willingness to do it is how this issue got so screwed up from the beginning.

The word "Citizen", as we have used it since 1776 comes from Switzerland. Switzerland was at that time the only *REPUBLIC* in existence. The entire rest of the world used the word "Subject" to refer to their nationals.

The founders used "CITIZEN" to show a break from the English common law claim that they owed perpetual allegiance to the King. Why would we keep a definition that requires us to keep loyal to the King?

Since our *WORD* comes from Switzerland, via the writings of Emmerick Vattel, why would the founders have intended to use any definition but the one he articulated in his book "Law of Nations"?

It gets better. *VATTEL* is where the idea of *FORMING* the United States came from. It was literally *HIS* idea.

Here is a quote from his book, the arrival of which is what actually triggered the entire revolution.

§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.
"Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted."

https://www.constitution.org/2-Authors/vattel/vattel_01.htm

Bear in mind, this book was written at a time when it was Treason to do it in England, France, Germany, or *ANY PLACE IN THE WORLD OTHER THAN SWITZERLAND.*

It was literally illegal to write this in England. It undermined the authority of the King. It undermined the authority of *ANY* King. Samuel Rutherford had to flee England for the much lesser thing he wrote about the Rights of Man and Law.

The Idea of colonies renouncing the authority of the king and governing themselves could only have came from Switzerland, because Switzerland is the only place where this had already happened, and the only place that believed in this idea at the time.

“of parents who were not the subjects of any other sovereignty”
Both of Kamala’s parents were NOT naturalized (became
american citizens) until AFTER she was born.
Far from idiocy.

“Every person born in the United States, is now a Mongolian citizen?”

Not possible if you have two parents who were naturalized
or natural born. Even if a kid was born in another country
that does not recognise dual citizenship. They retain
their US citizenship.
It’s not a question of WHERE you were born vs who you
were born to when it comes to holding the highest office.