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

The 134 PAC ^ | August 9, 2024 | The 134 Team

[Macho MAGA Man]

This morning the Defendants in The 134 PAC's voter intimidation lawsuit in Fort Worth, added Jane Nelson, the Texas Secretary of State, as a Cross-Defendant. These local activists, sued Secretary Nelson to keep Kamala Harris and Nicole Shanahan off the Presidential ballot in Texas because, they claim, neither of them are "natural born citizens" and therefore cannot appear on any state's ballot for the Presidential election. If Secretary Nelson does not remove them from the ballot, they also seek Secretary Nelson's removal from office, criminal prosecution and damages.

[Does so]

“Are stupid republicans actively trying to lose this election?”
^
...or opening the door for an Elon Musk candidacy...?

[dangus]

Oh come on, the holding is that ‘[t]he child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father.’ You can’t separate that holding from the basis of it. And in fact, there is no distinction made in the text between dicta and holding, such as in modern cases, where it separates the two by the literal word, “Held.” In fact, the dissent explicitly describes the definition as “held” by the majority (”Thus, the fourteenth amendment is held to be merely declaratory, except that it ... puts that rule beyond the control of the legislative power.”)

The dissent acknowledges the common-law definition, but merely argues that common law isn’t necessarily in effect after the passage of the Constitution, a position held by no conservative on the Court, nor to my knowledge on any appellate court, arguing “if that amendment bears the construction now put upon it, it imposed the English common-law rule on this country for the first time, and made it ‘absolute and unbending,’ just as Great Britain was being relieved from its inconveniences.” In fact, it’s the DISSENT that argues that “natural-born citizen” may be defined by statue! “Nationality is essentially a political idea, and belongs to the sphere of public law.”

In fact, the dissent shows explicitly where Vattel’s definition is in direct conflict with the 14th amendment altogether: “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.”

That’s right: if we were to adhere to Vattel’s political theory, we would find that the 14th amendment directly overturns the Constitution’s definition of “natural-born.” To be clear, the dissent wouldn’t; the dissent argues that obligations to one’s country of birth should be set by legislation. I’m using Vattel herein to make a different point than that made by the dissent. And to be clear: I don’t actually think that the 14th amendment overrides the Natural-born clause; I don’t think Vattel is relevant to U.S. law. Keep in mind that this is the DISSENT. I only reference it to show that the dissent considered Vattel’s definition utterly inconsistent with Ark. But the problem with the dissent is that not just the majority, but the 14th amendment itself is in direct contradiction to Vattel.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“”I assert that every man born within the limits of the Republic, or under its flag at sea, of parents who were not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are, in the very words of the Constitution, natural born citizens””

What about women?

[xzins]

parents who were not the subjects of any other sovereignty

Her parents were each subjects of another sovereignty. Father: Jamaica; Mother: India.

That's why the "subject" word is in the 14th Amendment.

She isn't a natural born citizen. It isn't a difficult thing to figure out with her. Neither parent applied for citizenship until she was well into her teens.

Moreover, her mother left the USA and moved to Canada where Harris was raised during her formative years: 12-17 or so, I believe.

And to be honest, Harris isn't an American Black. She might claim to have Jamaican Black blood, but her experience was not as a black raised in the USA.

[vetvetdoug]

Getting right down to the subject, Obama wasn’t eligible because his Mother was not a 21 year old citizen and his Father a foreign national. The law didn’t matter and the general population ignored it and elected him anyway and the subject dropped. I don’t see the liberal judicial system following the letter of the law with Kamala either so it is not worth the pursuit. Hopefully our judicial system will go back to following the letter of the law.

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh come on, the holding is that ‘[t]he child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father.’

And where in there do you see "natural born"?

"Natural born" is a very specific reference to citizenship. It *IS* the requirement to be President.

Now you may think the court does not distinguish between one type of citizen and another, and if you do, you would be wrong, because it was this very same court that gave us the Unanimous decision of Plessy v Ferguson, which established "Separate but Equal."

You can’t separate that holding from the basis of it.

Well *they* did. They didn't add "natural born", and one can only conclude this was done deliberately.

“if that amendment bears the construction now put upon it, it imposed the English common-law rule on this country for the first time, and made it ‘absolute and unbending,’ just as Great Britain was being relieved from its inconveniences.” In fact, it’s the DISSENT that argues that “natural-born citizen” may be defined by statue!

Your snippet only argues that the English common law rule can be imposed by statute.

That’s right: if we were to adhere to Vattel’s political theory, we would find that the 14th amendment directly overturns the Constitution’s definition of “natural-born.”

The 14th says "citizen." It does not say "natural born citizen." If you read the debates on the 14th amendment, they make it clear they regarded the 14th amendment as a "naturalization" process.

Countries have always been able to naturalize, but this has no bearing on citizens who were natural. They don't need naturalization because they are already natural citizens.

I don’t think Vattel is relevant to U.S. law

Where was the US Constitutional convention held? Philadelphia, right?

Do you think the legal community of Philadelphia might have an idea what they meant by "natural born citizen"?

Here is an excerpt from a Law book from 1817 Pennsylvania. This book deals specifically with what British laws remained in effect after the US was created.

Keep in mind that this is the DISSENT. I only reference it to show that the dissent considered Vattel’s definition utterly inconsistent with Ark.

I don't know why I should feel any compulsion to defend someone else's thinking, which may or may not conform to my own. I can defend my positions quite well, but I do not know if Justice Melvin and Justice Fuller had thought of everything or availed themselves of all the information that I have.

[dangus]

>> Well *they* did. They didn’t add “natural born”, and one can only conclude this was done deliberately. <<

Yes, and the reason is absurdly obvious: Wong Kim Ark was not running for president. It is absolutely normal to extend the legal reasoning/interpretation/doctrine used in one case to another related issue. In fact, just about every case that actually makes it to the Supreme Court does just that. If you thought I meant that the Supreme Court had already ruled that someone was or was not fit to be president, no, any such ruling would necessarily determine who was president after an election had happened in order to be ripe and would represent an absolute crisis of democracy, and to insist that such a holding could not be based on any previous holding should be made independent of any previous dicta and in fact in could be made in direct opposition to previous dicta is to demand that the Supreme Court decides elections without any predictability.

>> Your snippet only argues that the English common law rule can be imposed by statute. <<

Your interpretation renders the argument meaningless since of course laws can be imposed by statute so long as they are not prohibited by the Constitution. In fact, the dissent was making the rejected argument that common law needed to be enacted, rather than being the context in which our incredibly sparse Constitution was enacted. Emphasis on REJECTED.

>> The 14th says “citizen.” It does not say “natural born citizen.” If you read the debates on the 14th amendment, they make it clear they regarded the 14th amendment as a “naturalization” process. <<

For former slaves. Naturalization is the process of becoming Natural, herein meaning “native,” as opposed to those who are born Natural. Hence, everyone is either naturalized, or natural-born. You can’t be a citizen without being either.

>> Where was the US Constitutional convention held? Philadelphia, right? Do you think the legal community of Philadelphia might have an idea what they meant by “natural born citizen”? Here is an excerpt from a Law book from 1817 Pennsylvania. This book deals specifically with what British laws remained in effect after the US was created. <<

That book’s thesis doesn’t make your point that Natural Born Citizen does not mean citizen by birth, but rather that a child of aliens is not a citizen at all, which was actually contradicted by a much older case, the name of which I don’t recall, but it argued that a girl was a citizen despite her father dying having never attained citizenship. (Ark argued that Ark was a citizen despite his father having returned with him to China.) That book’s theory is in direct opposition to Ark, and the city it was published in does not make it authoritative to U.S. law.

>> I don’t know why I should feel any compulsion to defend someone else’s thinking, which may or may not conform to my own. I can defend my positions quite well, but I do not know if Justice Melvin and Justice Fuller had thought of everything or availed themselves of all the information that I have. <<

As you point out, they absolutely certainly had access to Vittel, and even in their dissent of those who reject Vittel, reject his basis of citizenship.

>> The 14th says “citizen.” <<

It does, but it cannot accept Vittel’s definition of “natural born citizen” (actually, “native”) while rejecting his definition of “citizen” altogether. You can’t reject the superset without rejecting the subset.

[dangus]

Look, to put it simply, I interpret anything someone argues as to be meaningful. If you meant to say that “Natural-born citizen” has not been adjudicated in the narrowest sense, you care correct, but your argument is utterly meaningless. Lower courts, Congress and election officials have clear guidance from the Supreme Court as to what “Natural-born” means, and they can’t assert Vittel’s definition without arguing Ark was decided based on a false premise, regardless whatever some lawyer publishing in Philadelphia felt in 18-whatever.

I do have a problem with the Court’s doctrine (or perhaps praxis is a more precise term) of ripeness; basically the court won’t address any challenge to electoral law until doing so means overturning the interpretation Congress has acted on, but then would defer to Congress’s actions. Essentially, Congress must defy prevailing law to challenge an election. That’s appears to be a fatally grave flaw in US democracy.

[xzins]

They need a lawsuit to do anything

[Tacrolimus1mg]

At least Trump’s campaign didn’t bring the suit. I hope he doesn’t comment on it right away, because that’ll push immigrant voters away, and he’s doing quite well with them right now.

I’m sure it’ll go exactly nowhere, because then everything Obama did would have to be dealt with, and that’s quite a cascading mess. No judge, whether they agree or not, will put themselves in that kind of danger (from attacks by constituents) or commit professional suicide by ruling on this the way the right wants. SCOTUS, maybe, but I don’t see this making it there.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, and the reason is absurdly obvious: Wong Kim Ark was not running for president. It is absolutely normal to extend the legal reasoning/interpretation/doctrine used in one case to another related issue. In fact, just about every case that actually makes it to the Supreme Court does just that. If you thought I meant that the Supreme Court had already ruled that someone was or was not fit to be president, no, any such ruling would necessarily determine who was president after an election had happened in order to be ripe and would represent an absolute crisis of democracy, and to insist that such a holding could not be based on any previous holding should be made independent of any previous dicta and in fact in could be made in direct opposition to previous dicta is to demand that the Supreme Court decides elections without any predictability.

You could have just said "they dodged the issue."

Oh, by the way, that same Dicta precludes Ted Cruz from being a "natural born citizen." I'll point it out to you if you like.

Your interpretation renders the argument meaningless since of course laws can be imposed by statute so long as they are not prohibited by the Constitution.

Can a law make a man into a woman? Nature says "no."

I spent a great deal of time looking for the origins of "natural born citizen", and what I discovered is that everything the founders did derived from "natural law" which was a big concept in the 18th century, and which has largely been forgotten today.

According to natural law principles, a Law cannot make anything natural which is not already natural.

In fact, the dissent was making the rejected argument that common law needed to be enacted, rather than being the context in which our incredibly sparse Constitution was enacted. Emphasis on REJECTED.

I don't put a lot of stock in the opinions of the court, and even less so when they are not unanimous. I can form my own opinions quite well, and therefore all I want to see is *EVIDENCE* not what someone else thought about something. (Unless their thoughts are *EVIDENCE* as in the case of the founders who were involved in the process.)

For former slaves.

Oh, so you are arguing that this law they passed which naturalizes former slaves, ceased being a naturalization law once it had dealt with all the slaves?

Why wouldn't it continue being a naturalization law? Does the law take note of the status of slaves and handles them differently or is it just a general statement that applies exactly the same to everyone?

Naturalization is the process of becoming Natural, herein meaning “native,” as opposed to those who are born Natural. Hence, everyone is either naturalized, or natural-born.

And if it naturalizes the slaves, it naturalizes everyone who becomes a citizen as a result of it.

That book’s thesis doesn’t make your point that Natural Born Citizen does not mean citizen by birth, but rather that a child of aliens is not a citizen at all, which was actually contradicted by a much older case,...

God forbid that we might contradict some other mistake made in the past!

That book’s theory is in direct opposition to Ark,...

Why would it be in opposition to Ark? Ark says that *BECAUSE* of the 14th amendment. Ark is a "citizen."

Yeah, they passed an amendment to naturalize people since that book was written. It doesn't change the law at the time the book was written.

That book only deals with natural citizenship, not artificial citizenship like the 14th amendment.

... and the city it was published in does not make it authoritative to U.S. law.

Pretty much does. It is as close to the root of the system as it is possible to get. That other people got it wrong later, mostly thanks to people like William Rawle (A view of the Constitution) *DELIBERATELY* misleading people on the nature of US citizenship, doesn't change the fact that this book is very good evidence of the Framers original intent regarding "Citizen" in lieu of "Subject."

As you point out, they absolutely certainly had access to Vittel, and even in their dissent of those who reject Vittel, reject his basis of citizenship.

Their access to Vattel has nothing to do with it. The necessary piece of information they need to arrive at a correct conclusion is "What did the founders mean by "natural born citizen"?

That Pennsylvania law book, which they may or may not have had access to, makes it clear what the founders intended with changing us from "Subjects" to "Citizens." It is better evidence than we have to believe they intended to follow the English Common Law definition for English "Subjects", while applying it to this new "Citizen" thing.

It does, but it cannot accept Vittel’s definition of “natural born citizen” (actually, “native”) while rejecting his definition of “citizen” altogether.

The 14th has nothing to do with Vattel. It is a naturalization law created to give citizenship to freed slaves. It doesn't create natural citizens, it only creates naturalized citizens.

Citizenship should be viewed genetically. Anyone born to people with it, posses it's attributes (and none other) naturally. Everyone else is just adopted.

The land you are born on doesn't alter your genetic makeup at all. It was just a good rule for the King to force allegiance from anyone born on his property, as he would a cow.

[DiogenesLamp]

If you meant to say that “Natural-born citizen” has not been adjudicated in the narrowest sense, you care correct, but your argument is utterly meaningless. Lower courts, Congress and election officials have clear guidance from the Supreme Court as to what “Natural-born” means,

Where? As you admitted, they have consistently dodged that case.

and they can’t assert Vittel’s definition without arguing Ark was decided based on a false premise

I don't know why anyone would be concerned with the sanctity of Ark, given that this very same court ruled "Separate but Equal". They pretty much sh*t the bed on that one, so why should we care much about their reputation or decision making ability?

regardless whatever some lawyer publishing in Philadelphia felt in 18-whatever.

Let me post the full title of that book. It's not just "some lawyer."

I will also point out that Samuel Roberts was trained in law by William Lewis who was also a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature when Pennsylvania ratified the US Constitution.

No other men better knew the minds of the founders than the Philadelphia legal community of that era.

If you look up the Judges of the Supreme court of Pennsylvania, you will find many of them also have connections to the convention and the ratification of the US Constitution.

Congress must defy prevailing law to challenge an election. That’s appears to be a fatally grave flaw in US democracy.

The founders were right to require a stringent form of citizenship for the Presidency. We can see what a disaster that disloyal foreign bitch Obama has made of the nation. Not adhering to original intent, and letting all the legal people flim flam us with legal jargon and nonsense has led to what may turn out to be the fatal moment that killed the nation.

[MayflowerMadam]

“This idiocy needs to stop.”

Which idiocy? The idiocy of foreigners wanting to run our country (into the ground)? Or the alleged idiocy of patriots preferring someone whose allegiance is 100% with us?

[dangus]

I pointed out where they absolutely did issue an opinion on the definition of NBC and I refuted your argument that it was “only” in the dicta and you say I admitted they consistely dodged the case? This is where I brush your dust off my feet and have no further dealings with you because there is no point arguing with someone who has no regard for the truth whatsoever.

British statutes. Ha!

[DiogenesLamp]

I pointed out where they absolutely did issue an opinion on the definition of NBC

I clearly disagreed with your assertion, and pointed out what I regarded as very good proof you are completely wrong on that point.

and I refuted your argument that it was “only” in the dicta and you say I admitted they consistely dodged the case?

My recollection is that you said they never directly addressed the "natural born citizen" eligibility for presidency issue.

I agreed. "They clearly dodged the case."

This is where I brush your dust off my feet and have no further dealings with you because there is no point arguing with someone who has no regard for the truth whatsoever.

Funny you should say that, because I have put forth what I regard as very good arguments, yet you have not reconsidered anything which you already believe.

I have learned that when people don't want to know something, they simply will not acknowledge any proof that it is different from what they wish to believe.

I see this phenomena on the Civil War, on people falsely convicted of crimes (like Derrick Chauvin), on the 2020 election vote fraud issue, the Covid "vaccine" issue, and I see it on this issue as well.

People simply are not amenable to reason, and though you put forth an argument and present evidence that makes very good sense to you, it is not compelling to people who simply wish to believe otherwise.

I think it is a quirk of being human. I certainly find it to be quite common among people.

Adios.

[taxcontrol]

None the less, that is how SCOTUS ruled.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Kamala qualifies for Citizenship under the Jamaican constitution. (Section 3.2 IIRC) Father was Jamaican. Mother was an Indian Citizen, therefore, Commonwealth citizen, probably one reason she moved to Canada. (Other places she lived, Illinois, Chamaign Urbana, and Chicago.) There was a thread some time back that claimed that her mother was going to be Deported for overstaying her Student Visa which resulted in her move to Canada. It had a photo of a document that suggested this.

I wonder if Kamala became a Canadian Citizen while there? (Wasn't Obama an Indonesian Citizen, which allowed him to go to school?) She certainly would not acknowledge if she was. She could apply for Jamaican Citizenship and take a run at Jamaican P.M. (After she move there with "Mr Harris.") Both parents were citizens of another nation on student visas, so still subject to their country's jurisdiction. Not natural born.

[xzins]

Totally agree.