Posted on 08/11/2020 7:30:27 PM PDT by captain_dave
Is Kamala Harris qualified to be Vice President? Is Kamala Harris a "Natural Born Citizen"?
While she was born in California in 1964, both her parents were, at that time, recent immigrants. Her mother immigrated in 1960 and her father in 1961 (according to the bio in Wikipedia). So, there is a serious question whether she is a natural born citizen.
The old accepted understanding of "natural born citizen" is a person born of two citizen parents, so at birth has no other loyalties, or claims of loyalty.
Didn’t you get the memo? If you are born in the US you are a citizen and it’s all good. The constitution is just an old document nobody pays any attention to anymore.
“I don’t believe anchor babies are automatically citizens.”
I agree. So did the court. They said the parents needed to be in the USA “in amity” with the government, and someone here illegally is not. Arguably, someone here as a tourist is not here RESIDING “in amity” with the government either. And anyone here illegally is in the same situation as an invading army, whose children are NOT born citizens.
Democrats don’t recognize the USA as a sovereign nation, and they intend to destroy us.
By the by, Kamala’s parents were not US citizens.
What an idiot that guy is!
Some people simply can't recognize that an ACT of Congress can't confer the status of natural born citizen upon a person while such an ACT can indeed confer the status of citizen to a person.
“What is the difference between a mere “born citizen” (the Founders considered this phrase, but rejected it) and the more restrictive natural born Citizen...”
First, we have no idea what was considered on this clause of the Constitution. There are no records of any debate on this clause. However, Natural Born Subject was a well known legal term used by the Founders often during their colony days, and it simply meant born as a subject.
By restricting Presidents to NBC, they rejected naturalized citizens from the presidency. There were only two categories: Natural born or naturalized. Still are only two.
An ACT of Congress can't make a person a natural born citizen.
Why is that so hard for people to comprehend?
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention made the Constitution’s Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 partly to allow themselves and others to run for president regardless if their parents were British subjects for example.
"Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution [emphasis added], 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."
Thanks.
-PJ
In the UK they had one sovereign with everyone else being subjects. It suited the UK sovereign's needs to be able to impress "subjects" (such as USA citizens in 1812) into the navy, so the definition of natural born subject was made as loose and all encompassing as possible, the exact opposite of purpose of the definition of natural born Citizen.
In the USA our executive is a public servant who serves his sovereigns, i.e., each and every citizen (exact opposite of the UK system). The natural born Citizen clause is Constitutional job requirement for the presidency (one of three) that was put in place to protect the Republic and its sovereign citizens from foreign intrigue and influence. It makes sense that it would be as restrictive as possible against foreign allegiances in our Commander-in-Chief, the head of our military might. A natural born Citzen must be free of any and all alien allegiance at birth.
You take your RINO new world order BS and get lost.
Your beating of a long Dead Horse means nothing.
Since Obama was inaugurated twice and John McCain was the pubbie candidate who also was not a “natural born citizen”.
It no longer is being implemented. That goes for pretty much the whole constitution.
Your birther inspired Vattel doctrine is a complete non starter for the nation any longer. Both parties destroyed it.
Please take it up with somebody else cause I don’t care at all anymore. We just need to defeat Biden and Harris at the polls. Period.
The Constitution is always worth defending. Always.
Quit being such a defeatist and join us in the education process of the victims of the marxist education system.
No, because after the Declaration of Independence, the natural born subjects of the colonies became the natural born citizens of the independent states of the United States of America. The laws of all the colonies and our legal system were and are rooted in English Common Law which became our common law.
NO!
NO!
It’s use in a draft of a peace treaty exchanged between ministers Plenipotentiary of two separate sovereign countries would also tend to suggest that the term “natural born citizen” did not partake of any substantial degree of murkiness, at least in the minds of, say, John Adams, John Jay, or Ben Franklin.
Four years later, John Jay makes his famous “hint” to George Washington. Would John Jay dare to do this (i.e., suggest that the command in Chief of the Army devolve on none but a natural born citizen) if either John Jay or George Washington didn’t know exactly what it was that Jay was suggesting that Washington do in terms of erecting a “strong check” against foreigners gaining ascendancy in our armed forces?
Given all this, it absolutely MUST have been the case that exactly NONE of the founding fathers or the framers of the U.S. Constitution was IN ANY WAY HAZY by 1787-88 about:
1) the specific meaning of the term “natural born citizen”,
2) precisely who was and who was not a natural born citizen of the United States under the then-operative Articles of Confederation, or
3) who would and who would not be a natural born citizen of the United States in the future in the event the proposed new Constitution were to be adopted.
People opposed to the lineage definition of NBC as a Presidential qualifier hang their arguments on the insistence that it is an impossible distinct category of citizenship in what is considered to be a binary condition (at-birth or by law).
-PJ
The Colonists by and large were actually not “natural born subjects” of the British crown.
Rather, most all of them having been born in North America and thus “beyond the realm” of England and Scotland, the Colonists were, in point of fact as well as in law, only “considered as” natural born subjects. In other words, the Colonists of British North America always were, and were moreover bound always to remain, the equivalent of naturalized citizens from the perspective of their British cousins (most all of whom were, of course, full-fledged natural born subjects of the crown, in that they were natives or “naturels” who enjoyed all the additional rights and advantages, but also bore all the additional responsiblities, that went along with being who they were, rather than merely being “considered as” natural born subjects).
Natural born citizen has not been totally defined. But a later article has defined the situation better:
Article 14 Sec 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. So just by being born in Oakland, Ca, she qualifies as a citizen on her own.
This was the reason they had to get Obama born in Hawaii as his birth, in my opinion, and witnessed by his relatives, was in Mombasa, Kenya, and his mother, the only American citizen parent, had not resided in the US for over 4 years, which disqualified him of being a citizen of the U.S. and he would have to had qualified like any other immigrant that was allowed to enter. Interesting that it didn’t make any difference until he ran for president and his birth certificate was “lost.”
rwood
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.