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.
You may not have been around at the time but it was discussed at length on FR back in the day.I liked cruz at first until his details came out and it was a little too shady for me and I was firmly in the Trump camp from that time on.
No way
+100
You nailed it with the both parties comment.
I clicked on this just to see if the usual suspects were willing to give her as much crap as they gave Ted Cruz. It appears to be a settled argument by now. If you are born here, even as an anchor baby, you can be POTUS. If Biden is elected, what do we think the SCOTUS will say because you know someone will bring it up?
There seems to be deliberate confusion (anybody surprised?) about how the Constitution's “natural born citizen” is defined. And while it is one of the more challenging constitutional terms to pin down imo, here are the basics.
A constitutional clue to understanding what the "natural born citizen" of constitutional clause 2.1.5 means is to have a look at the Constitution's 1.8.10 which references a "Law of Nations."
1.8.10: "Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations [emphasis added];"
2.1.5: "No Person except a natural born Citizen [emphasis added], 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."
Law of Nations was a French language international law reference by Emmerich de Vattel which was accepted and used by delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Again, this is evidenced by the reference to Law of Nations in the Constitution's 1.8.10.
Simply put, Law of Nations defines natural born citizen as being born on land controlled by a country to parents who are full citizens of that country (my wording).
A quick reference is Law of Nations, 1758 law book defines 'natural born citizen'.
"Quote of section #212, Chapter 19, Book 1, Law of Nations, by Vattel, written in 1758: "§ 212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens [emphasis added]. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. ""
And Neither is Ted Cruz. So it isn’t people I don’t like.
Since many of the founding fathers may not have actually been born from citizen parents and since several of them were elected as president after the founding documents were created it is apparent that the tells concept of a natural born citizen was not foremost and their mind.
Since then Congress has passed into law which has been signed by duly elected presidents that people like John McCain or Even Ted Cruz can technically be considered natural born. Love it or hate it Obama was ratified and duly seated as president of the United States for not 1 but 2 terms. Precident And legislative law signed by duly elected presidents has become the law of the land as much as I hated trying to reestablish our laws on books written by 17th or 18th century Frenchman is a waste of time.
It will never be litigated and if it did go to the Supreme Court it would be ruled against… that is that tells definition of natural born citizen being the only definition thereof or even fully understood by all the signers of our constitution documents at the time.
It’s a waste of time to keep argue reading about it.
If that is what they meant and by that I mean all the signers of the declaration and the ratifiers of the Constitution then it has fallen into disuse a street and we won’t be rewriting the Constitution in our lifetime.
It is good that you keep the memory of what once was in scope.
But it will never be seen by the American public and that manner ever again. It has been rendered obsolete, though improperly by our legislation, and precedent.
Are we to read this as offences against the Law of Nations committed in neutral territory (e.g., on the high seas), or is this a power to punish offences against the Law of Nations generally?
If it's the latter, how broad a power of Congress is this?
-PJ
Why do you say this?
Aren't you aware of the clause in Article II that says "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...?"
They thought enough of it to grandfather in people from other countries who were here at the founding of the country.
Our "charter members," so to speak.
If it's a "tell" of anything, it's that the really DID mean for the President to be citizen children of citizen parents, or they wouldn't have gone out of the way to grandfather in people already here at the time of the framing of the Constitution.
-PJ
You can be absolutely correct and still completely missed the point.
If you can find us 6, count them to 6 Supreme Court justices who will agree with you... You might, I said might actually prevail in an argument.
If you could actually find 2/3 of the States that would ratify it in such a manner as to incorporate Vatells Paragraph “into the proper location within our constitution” you might have something.
The founders intent may be perfectly clear to you in me based on historical context but to the vast majority of Americans they would disagree with you and did.
We need to accept as historical fact let this interpretation has been set aside by the American people and that would be set aside by the Supreme Court and none of the States would ratify the description listed in your primary text... And even if 2/3 did ratify I don’t think the globalists would ever agree.
We have people on the Supreme Court who can actually see the right to murder babies in the womb. Getting someone to accept a French lawmakers description of natural born citizen from the early 1700s is not going to happen. Not going to happen without God’s grace. And that grace is not going to be poured out on us while we murdered 20 million babies a year. Ancient French lawmakers be dammed.
Besides, what you just wrote to me has nothing to do with the wrong statement you made in your prior post about the Framers not thinking about it.
Your argument seems to be that the current political class doesn't care anymore. They only care about the parts of the Constitution that define their own jobs, the rest is scrap.
Is that supposed to motivate me to stop talking about it, or you to stop learning about it?
-PJ
We just got rid of an illegal alien with a phony social security number, phony selective service number, probably a phony degree and professorship (since no one has ever admitting to have been in any of his classes), etc.
I don’t think Kamanawana has any wheres near that kind of criminal background.
Constitution? The hell with it.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | Vi
After Republicans didn’t challenge soetoro who wasn’t even a citizen it’s moot, though it shouldn’t be.
Please quote the corresponding passage in the U.S. Constitution - or any Federal law - defining what is meant by "natural-born citizen."
You can't, can you?
If by "written by the Founders" you mean, "mentioned in a personal letter, a diary, etc.", then say so!
My personal interpretation is that a "natural-born citizen" is one who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and hence never had to be naturalized.
Regards,
I’ve posted numerous times on FR that Kamala is just an anchor baby, born to two foreign citizen parents. She is NOT NBC and is NOT Constitutionally eligible to be VP or POTUS.
Now that she’s been selected as VP candidate, maybe someone will decide to investigate her eligibility.
Wrong. Both parents were citizens of foreign countries. She’s only a Native (anchor baby) US citizen; not a NBC.
They wish! Not true.
Only if El Chapo and the twins’ mother were US citizens.
Ted Cruz was born in CAN to a US citizen mother and her husband while they were temporarily working in Canada.
Parents were legal residents of the US and lived in Texas.
Father was NOT a CAN citizen. He was a legal immigrant from Cuba. Mother was of sufficient age and time of residency in the US to pass her US citizenship to Ted.
Ted could only have had CAN citizenship IF his mother applied for it before he attained the age of 22. She did not. ....Because of BS about Ted’s citizenship, he wrote the letter to CAN in 2016 to make it clear.
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.