Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kamala Harris Got Away With It As VP – She Should Not Be Allowed to Get Away With It As The Commander In Chief – Trump Should Challenge Her Constitutional Eligibility
The Post & Email ^ | 22 Jul 2024 | CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

Posted on 07/22/2024 9:33:51 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner

(Jul. 22, 2024) — Trump will have the legal standing in federal courts to do so if she is nominated for that office by the DNC. And Trump should do so to force SCOTUS to take up the issue of the “natural born Citizen” term as it applies to whom can constitutionally serve as the President and Commander in Chief (and VP per the 12th Amendment) and resolve it. The courts evaded the issue using “lack of standing by the plaintiffs” for Obama and then also for Harris for VP. They should not do that again. Former Chief Justice Marshall‘s words from the past tell them they should not evade the issue.

To Kamala Harris: Fool the voting electorate once, shame on you. Fool the voting electorate twice, shame on us. She owes allegiance since birth to the English monarch – formerly Queen Elizabeth and now King Charles! Click on the image below for more details.

(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; History; Military/Veterans; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: donaldtrump; electionfraud; kamala; kamalaharris; naturalborncitizen; nbcclowns; nbckooks; presidenteligibilty; replacingjoe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-210 next last
To: DiogenesLamp

Plessy was not overturned by Brown, Brown was specific to children’s schools and was decided not on XIV but on “new discoveries in psychological research”.

Plessy was overturned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


161 posted on 07/22/2024 8:53:13 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Assez de mensonges et de phrases)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I think you should go for it! Go find you another lawyer, another Mario Apuzzo, and pay him or her a bunch of money to go to court! Be sure you give him or her all your voluminous research, too! That will save them a whole lot of time doing research. Then, when you go to Court, and win, come back here and gloat!

But, do not be surprised when the lawyer tells you, “I took all your research, and read it, but do you realize that SCOTUS decided this back in 1898??? I can’t file this without risking getting sanctioned by a Judge for filing frivolous lawsuits.”


162 posted on 07/22/2024 8:56:12 PM PDT by Penelope Dreadful (And there is Pansies, that's for Thoughts. +Sodomy & Abortion are NOT cornerstones of Civilization! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Jim W N

100% but people are afraid to really fight. Most just want to win the right to a slow death.


163 posted on 07/22/2024 9:04:06 PM PDT by Glad2bnuts (“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: We should have set up ambushes...paraphrased)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: T.B. Yoits
Kamala Harris was born into the allegiance of Jamaica and India.

President Barack Obama, Vice President Kamala Harris, Nimrata Haley, Marco Rubio, Charles Evans Hughes, Bobby Jindal, and Vivek Ramaswamy — all natural born citizens, as was Vice-President and President Chester Arthur, born of a foreign father in 1829.

164 posted on 07/22/2024 9:07:18 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: CDR Kerchner

Good points. And, no, she has no connection to “America”.


165 posted on 07/22/2024 9:10:11 PM PDT by vivenne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles; JesusIsLord
Kamala Harris was born into the allegiance of Jamaica and India.

President Barack Obama, Vice President Kamala Harris, Nimrata Haley, Marco Rubio, Charles Evans Hughes, Bobby Jindal, and Vivek Ramaswamy — all natural born citizens, as was Vice-President and President Chester Arthur, born of a foreign father in 1829.

Here is the U.S. Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution:

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 658-59:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 662-63 (1898)

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."

14A-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."

166 posted on 07/22/2024 9:17:21 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
The point remains that all the lawyers were lapping it up until it was overturned.
167 posted on 07/22/2024 9:21:40 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: AFret.; Jim W N
https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030101.html#M301_1_1

[State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual]

8 FAM 301.1-1 INTRODUCTION

c. Naturalization – Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth: Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a State upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (INA 101(a)(23) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (see INA 310, 8 U.S.C. 1421 and INA 311, 8 U.S.C. 1422). Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. (See 7 FAM 1140.)

d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:

(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;

(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.” Pursuant to this ruling:

(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and

(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.


168 posted on 07/22/2024 9:25:09 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Penelope Dreadful
I think you should go for it! Go find you another lawyer, another Mario Apuzzo, and pay him or her a bunch of money to go to court! Be sure you give him or her all your voluminous research, too! That will save them a whole lot of time doing research. Then, when you go to Court, and win, come back here and gloat!

This would work as well as Trump's trial in New York, or the J6 trials in Washington DC.

You can't get obnoxious Judges to actually look at anything they don't like and won't agree with. Remember all the attempts to challenge the vote fraud in court?

Courts are utter garbage. The Judges are idiots, liars, and sometimes corrupt. Just yesterday there was an article about a man who spent 14 years in prison because a court "proved" he raped a woman he didn't actually rape. (I think I sent you a link, but you had no comment on the matter.)

Spare me suggestions that "courts" will do what is right. Only naive people believe that.

169 posted on 07/22/2024 9:26:44 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
No they aren't. But for some reason you are obsessed with this idea, so it's just not worth the trouble to argue with you about it.
170 posted on 07/22/2024 9:28:04 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Yulee
If the issue is forced, it will disqualify her for the Presidency (can’t run), and consequently, once settled, she will not be able to continue Vice President. That would elevate the Speaker of the House to the Presidency, until January 20th.

If Kamala were disqualified, Biden would still be President, and he would nominate a new Vice President. Only if there is no sitting President or Vice President does the Speaker become President.

Kamala is Vice President. Amdt. 12: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

President Barack Obama, Vice President Kamala Harris, Nimrata Haley, Marco Rubio, Charles Evans Hughes, Bobby Jindal, and Vivek Ramaswamy — all natural born citizens, as was Vice-President and President Chester Arthur, born of a foreign father in 1829.

171 posted on 07/22/2024 9:36:12 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
President Barack Obama, Vice President Kamala Harris, Nimrata Haley, Marco Rubio, Charles Evans Hughes, Bobby Jindal, and Vivek Ramaswamy — all natural born citizens, as was Vice-President and President Chester Arthur, born of a foreign father in 1829.

Nimrata Haley, Marco Rubio, Charles Evans Hughes, Bobby Jindal, and Vivek Ramaswamy are irrelevant. They have never served as president or vice-president.

There are no documents showing what country William Arthur was a citizen of at the time of Chester Arthur's birth, whereas Barack Obama provided a birth certificate to claim he was born to two U.S. citizen parents and Kamala Harris's parents' citizenship paperwork clearly show they were foreigners when Kamala was born. She is not a natural born citizen and is not eligible to serve in her current job or as president.

172 posted on 07/22/2024 9:39:06 PM PDT by T.B. Yoits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble; DiogenesLamp
Plessy was overturned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You posit the legally impossible, namely that a legislatrive act overturned a provision of the Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Plessy (separate but equal) was reversed by Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954).

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."' Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

173 posted on 07/22/2024 10:05:18 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: T.B. Yoits
There are no documents showing what country William Arthur was a citizen of at the time of Chester Arthur's birth

Citizens are not eligible to be naturalized; they are already citizens. Wiliam Arthur was born in Ireland. Chester Arthur was born in Vermont in 1829. William Arthur was naturalized in New York in 1843.


174 posted on 07/22/2024 10:14:55 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Penelope Dreadful
This would work as well as Trump's trial in New York,

Keep hope alive! The Merchan court has not entered a judgment of guilty against Trump and it is very unlikely they ever will. The sentencing hearing was pushed back from June 11 to Sep 18 to consider the recent Scotus opinion will void that jury verdict. It appears a judgment will never be entered against Trump.

175 posted on 07/22/2024 10:26:32 PM PDT by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher

All this Birther stuff is pure horse crap. I can not believe that they have been pushing it for 16 some odd years! Bwahahahaha!How some people spend their lives!


176 posted on 07/22/2024 10:59:26 PM PDT by Penelope Dreadful (And there is Pansies, that's for Thoughts. +Sodomy & Abortion are NOT cornerstones of Civilization! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
“Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth:


Good Morning, and thanks for the supporting documents, (Extract above).

By any interpretation, Harris is a Citizen by birth only and not NBC, therefore ineligible to serve as VPOTUS or POTUS...Period.
As with obama, she is a shade of black and “deemed” qualified by Congress solely to avoid cities burning. “Deemed” does not qualify her...only our Constitution does.
To be elected to POTUS/VPOTUS requires:
1- 35 years of age
2- Lived in the US for 14 years
3- Parent(s) must be US citizen(s) at the time of birth

#3 applies...neither parent was a citizen when Heels was born in Oakland.

The dems have been playing fast and loose with the Constitution regarding eligibility so far, but that has to stop with Harris.
I don't believe she will be elected, but I didn't think biden would either...but here we are.
If they steal this election like they did in 2020, we will have crossed the Rubicon.
Enough of this charade...

177 posted on 07/23/2024 5:06:15 AM PDT by AFret. (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
President Barack Obama, Vice President Kamala Harris, Nimrata Haley, Marco Rubio, Charles Evans Hughes, Bobby Jindal, and Vivek Ramaswamy — all natural born citizens, as was Vice-President and President Chester Arthur, born of a foreign father in 1829.

I agree.

178 posted on 07/23/2024 5:32:19 AM PDT by JesusIsLord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
You posit the legally impossible, namely that a legislatrive act overturned a provision of the Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes, that didn't sound right to me either, but I didn't want to argue about that particular point.

179 posted on 07/23/2024 7:03:03 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
Keep hope alive! The Merchan court has not entered a judgment of guilty against Trump and it is very unlikely they ever will. The sentencing hearing was pushed back from June 11 to Sep 18 to consider the recent Scotus opinion will void that jury verdict. It appears a judgment will never be entered against Trump.

I have said that Trump has the luck of the Irish. I've noticed this since at least 2016.

I recall reading an article in which his sister, who was at that time a Federal Judge in New York, was asked if she ever fought with him growing up. She replied "I used to, but I quit doing it. He always won. He always won."

But make no mistake. A court that could indict him and prosecute him under these ridiculous charges is evidence of a broken system. That Trump is getting out from under it does not change the fact that this could only happen with a defective system.

180 posted on 07/23/2024 7:07:29 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-210 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson