An Open Letter to Robert Kennedy Jr – Challenge the Constitutional Eligibility to be POTUS and CinC of ‘Anchor Baby’ Kamala Harris

The Post & Email Newspaper ^ | 21 Aug 2024 | CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

[CDR Kerchner]

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

I have heard rumors you might be suspending your campaign. You should not suspend your campaign; but instead file federal and/or state lawsuits challenging Kamala Harris’ constitutional eligibility for the office of President (POTUS) and Commander in Chief (CinC).

As a candidate for the same office as Harris, you have legal standing (to which many others have not been granted) to legally challenge Kamala Harris in the federal and state courts; and thus force SCOTUS to take up the issue once and for all on the merits; and decide who is a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) of the United States kind of Citizen per the original intent, understanding, purpose, and WHY when the founders and framers chose that national security protection term; and placed it only into Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. For WHY see: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf

The Democrat Party and Harris’ operatives have used extensive “law-fare” against you to sabotage and suppress your candidacy and to try to keep you off the ballot in many states. It is time for you to return the “legal fire”; and legally, constitutionally challenge Kamala Harris’ constitutional eligibility status as she is only an “Anchor Baby” kind of Citizen at best. She is not born with or holding sole allegiance to the USA. She is a dual-Citizen via and at birth due to her foreign Jamaican national Marxist father who was only temporarily sojourning in the USA on a student VISA when Kamala was born. Her foreign national mother was also only here on a temporary student VISA. Here parents were not U.S. citizens when Kamala was born. Nor were Kamala’s parents legally permanently domiciled in the USA. They were alien nationals temporarily sojourning in the USA on student VISAs.

[philman_36]

Everybody wants to go to the 14th Amendment or old BS court cases and completely overlook the authority Congress has on immigration.

Decade after decade Congress passed numerous laws that touched on every aspect of immigration until 1952 when all of those laws was condensed into USC 8.

14th Amendment arguments are a dodge. Subject to the jurisdiction arguments are a dodge. If your happy ass was born in the US after the passage of the 1952 INA, especially if your parents were ALIENS (not naturalized themselves), you are a citizen, but still not a natural born citizen, and the 1952 INA established the jurisdiction.

Somebody prove me wrong if they can.

[philman_36]

I’d bet the Supreme Court of today would defer to what the voters (allegedly) said in 2020.

Damn it man, the SC is supposed to uphold the bloody frigging CONSTITUTION, not defer to the voters. How BS your argument is!!!

[Leaning Right]

> How BS your argument is!!! <

I am disappointed that you decided to drift towards vulgarity.

But yes, the Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the Constitution. That doesn’t mean they will. A pet peeve of mine is their interpretation of the 6th Amendment. That amendment says that in ALL criminal cases the accused has the right to a jury trial.

No, said the Supreme Court a couple of decades ago. You are only entitled to a jury trial if the penalty is more than 180 days imprisonment. Otherwise, you have no right to ask for a jury trial. Unbelievable, but yet it stands.

So that’s my point. We must see things as they are, not as they should be.

It’s late, so I’m calling it a night. If you have a polite counter-argument, I hope to read it tomorrow. I often learn new things that way.

But if it’s just more vulgarity…best to just let it be.

[philman_36]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/oathsofoffice.aspx

I don't see one place in any of those three types of oath where deferring to voters is mentioned.

[philman_36]

I am disappointed that you decided to drift towards vulgarity.

I don't give two red plug cents about your disappointment!!!
You incensed me with your inane "defer to voters" dribble which you kept repeating.
I'm not in some popularity contest nor am I here to be liked as if I were some vacuous gen z freak looking for followers.

We must see things as they are, not as they should be.

Now all you're doing is mouthing useless platitudes.

[philman_36]

Here is the link to Eastman'sarticle Trump mentioned.

Some Questions for Kamala Harris About Eligibility
In part and somewhat touching on my position...

Were Harris' parents lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth? If so, then under the actual holding of Wong Kim Ark, she should be deemed a citizen at birth—that is, a natural-born citizen—and hence eligible. Or were they instead, as seems to be the case, merely temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas issued pursuant to Section 101(15)(F) of Title I of the 1952 Immigration Act?

People don't understand the implications and far reaching effects of the 1952 INA.

[philman_36]

Continuing... If the latter were indeed the case, then derivatively from her parents, Harris was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers—Jamaica, in the case of her father, and India, in the case of her mother—and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as originally understood.

[philman_36]

USC 8 Sec. 1401 allows her dual citizenship throuth her parents foreign citizenship. I part with Eastman on this point.

1401 firmly places her under the jurisdiction through that law, not any jurisdiction implied under the 14th.

[TECTopcat]

100% AGREE

[philman_36]

100% AGREE
Oh, you think letting one usurpation go unchallenged is going to prevent another?

If someone is stomping your face are you just going to lay there and let them keep on stomping on you?

That's what it looks like to me.

[ridesthemiles]

BEST idea yet.

[ridesthemiles]

She is a “CITIZEN”

SHE IS NOT & CAN NEVER BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

[ridesthemiles]

TRUMP HAS mentioned it.

[ridesthemiles]

Why assume that???

HOWARD DEAN -—HEAD OF THE DNC at the time NEVER VETTED OBAMA CORRECTLY OR THOROUGHLY.

THEN-— PELOSI CAME UP WITH A “CERTIFICATE” TO ‘OK” OBAMA & CLEVERLY LEFT OUT THE “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” PART.

DEMS LIE, CHEAT & STEAL

[whitney69]

“A natural born citizen is a person who became a U.S. citizen at birth and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen#:~:text=A%20natural%20born%20citizen%20is,naturalization%20proceeding%20later%20in%20life.

I don’t write the laws. And the founders didn’t write the 14th either as they were all dead when the 14th was created. Natural born means having at birth the legal status of citizen. (Webster)

wy69

[whitney69]

“A natural born citizen is a person who became a U.S. citizen at birth and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen#:~:text=A%20natural%20born%20citizen%20is,naturalization%20proceeding%20later%20in%20life.

I don’t write the laws. And the founders didn’t write the 14th either as they were all dead when the 14th was created. Natural born means having at birth the legal status of citizen. (Webster)

wy69

[philman_36]

Why assume that???

Don't you recognize a dig when you see one?

[batazoid]

“A natural born citizen is a person who became a U.S. citizen at birth and did not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life.”

Here’s the issue: Both 14A §1 Birthright Citizens and Art. II, §1, Cl. 5 Natural-born Citizens are persons who became U.S. citizens at birth and do not need to go through a naturalization proceeding later in life.

A separate legal effect: While 14A §1 Birthright Citizens are subject to foreign sovereignties at birth, natural-born Citizens are not, being born exclusively from Citizen-parents.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

No, we can't assume that. "Subject" and "Citizen" are built on two different foundations and they are mutually exclusive.

The English common law is for "Subjects", and *ONLY* for "Subjects".

Where the confusion in this issue was introduced was in wrongheaded efforts to combine the definition of "Subject", with that of "Citizen", which as I said, is built on two completely different and mutually exclusive foundations.

"Subject", and English common law, is built on the foundation of "Monarchy."

"Citizen", is built on the foundation of natural law governing a Republic.

By using the word "Citizen", they make it clear we were to follow the natural law governing a "Republic", and not the "Subject" law, governing Monarchy.

In the 1770-1790 era, the well read men knew of "Law of Nations" written by Emmerrick Vattel, and they understood it's political implications, and they embraced them.

They didn't need to define "citizen", because the most well known work describing "citizen" was familiar to them all, and they accepted Vattel's definition for what a "citizen" was.

Other people came along later and deliberately conflated "Citizen" with "Subject", and thereby created the confusion on this issue.

"Citizens" are from Vattel. "Subjects" are from English common law.

We are not "Subjects", therefore we are not defined by English common law.

[DiogenesLamp]

But I’m telling you right now. Like it or not, the Supreme Court would rule that people like Obama and Harris are eligible to be president. The justices will quietly defer to the voters. And in 2008 the voters decided that Obama was eligible. And in 2020 they decided that Harris was eligible.

I might not like that. You might not like that. But it is, unfortunately, reality.

I agree with you. The courts are both *IGNORANT* and wanting to remain so, and *COWARDLY*, meaning they will not touch this lightning rod even though it is their duty to make uncomfortable decisions in compliance with the law.

No good will come of this if people attempt to make it a political issue on the national stage. It will do more harm then good attempting to go in this direction.