Posted on 06/29/2019 3:42:48 PM PDT by research99
Is Kamala Harris constitutionally eligible to be President if her father Donald J. Harris entered the US under a British Passport?
If not, should she be investigated by the FEC and others for soliciting campaign donations under a premise that can be shown to be fraudulent?
I get a lot of mileage posting your NBC info. Thanx If 5 or 6 secretaries of state would refuse to put her on their state’s ballot due to not being an NBC, the USSC would have to issue a ruling.
Not under the law at the time. Mother never became a citizen. Took daughters to Canada. Harris was born to un-naturalized legal immigrants. Immigrants had to be in US for five years before considered naturalized.
Six pages of Harris divorce documents, showing offshore accounts.
Watch out for the trolls claiming that Kamala is a NBC, even though both parents were aliens and citizens of other countries.
Kamala moved to Canada after the divorce, attending school there for 16 years.
ping to Kamala NBC BS.
> Do you believe the founders wanted a president whose parents were British citizens after the wars of 1776 and 1812. <
I’m just guessing here. But I don’t think they cared much about parents. Because the Constitution does not mention parents in the requirements to be president.
By the way, I wish parents were mentioned!
“The chief justice of the Supreme Court swore Obama into office not once but twice. He didn’t recuse himself because he was conflicted by his duty to the constitution, he swore him into office and then did it again four years later”.
The Chief Justice is under no constitutional obligation to negate an action of the electoral college absent an adjudication before the Supreme court after a grant of certiorari to hear the matter. No case on Article II president-elect eligibility has ever come before the Supreme Court. Therefore an objection by the Chief Justice before or at the swearing in ceremony would be completely inappropriate.
This ritual action says NOTHING about the constitutional merits of the issue.
as do I
Several people posted here that there was a common understanding of the meaning of natural born citizen as written in the documents of Vittel (sp) the French writer.
If the constitution was more like a dictionary we could eliminate the USSC
Thanks. Keep spreading the word. Check out my ping #60 on this thread.
xlnt
got it xlnt
my relatives all over facebook so i post this info there on any Harris news item
Er, correction. Make that ping #66.
Tulsi Gabbard was born on April 12, 1981, in Leloaloa, Maoputasi County, on American Samoa’s main island of Tutuila.
We have ANOTHER pick of the globalist elite that is not an Article II, Section 1, clause 5 Natural Born Citizen.
Because of Obama’s 8 years, we cannot get the SCOTUS to adjudicate this Article III matter for the first time in US history.
Tuaua v. United States
According to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the people born in American Samoa – including those born on Swains Island – are “nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth”. If a child is born on any of these islands to any U.S. citizen, then that child is considered a national and a citizen of the United States at birth. In an amicus curiae brief filed in federal court, Samoan Congressman Faleomavaega supported the legal interpretation that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not extend birthright citizenship to United States nationals born in unincorporated territories.
All U.S. nationals have statutory rights to reside in the United States (i.e., the 50 states and Puerto Rico), and may apply for citizenship by naturalization after three months of residency by passing a test in English and civics, and by taking an oath of allegiance to the United States. However, the INA makes clear that any “national but not a citizen of the United States” who at any time has been convicted of any aggravated felony, whether the aggravated felony was committed inside or outside the United States, is “debarred from becoming a citizen of the United States”
Here we go again!!!
> Several people posted here that there was a common understanding of the meaning of natural born citizen as written in the documents of Vittel (sp) the French writer. <
Yes, I’ve seen those posts. But I ‘m not swayed by references to some philosopher somewhere. If there was such a “common understanding”, it would be mentioned in the Federalist Papers. Or by Jefferson in a letter to another Founder, etc.
So Gabbard is a citizen by virtue of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, a statute; not even by virtue of the 14th amendment. She is NOT natural born. But I suppose that won’t matter to the trolls.....
Please read the majority decision authored by Chief Justice Livingstone in the SCOTUS Venus Merchentman case of 1814. he incorporated the ENTIRE 212th paragraph from Emmerich De Vatel’s “Law of Nations” in his definition of a natural born citizen.
Therin is a stare decisis basis for an acceptance of Vatel in a constitutional SCOTUS decision.
While we all agree that she is a bona fide citizen, if her parents had not been naturalized by the time of her birth then she is not a natural born citizen, period. She becomes a naturalized citizen at the same time her parents become naturalized citizen.
there are several reasons why the definition of two citizen parents seems accurate and there is little to support the same definition as another term natural citizen. This reasons are on this thread. The logic and info seems overwhelmingly to support my definition. Using the same definition for natural and natural born seems inaccurate on the face of it.
The founders including Jefferson were known to be scholars of european philosophers and politicians. jefferson also spent time in France and was very familiar with the French political writers. It is easy to conclude they took the same definition which was common in europe. Why is it easy to conclude they didn’t?
Unfortunately the constitution is woefully lacking in examples and definitions, thus we need a supreme court.
i have also posted we need a USSC ruling, but they rejected 6 cases against obama whose father was a british citizen to think the founders wanted the son of a british citizen to be president is more than a little stretch
agreed this is why Jindal, Cruz et al are not candidates and why McCain was given and unconstitutional resolution from congress, given his birth in panama.
> Please read the majority decision authored by Chief Justice Livingstone in the SCOTUS Venus Merchentman case of 1814. he incorporated the ENTIRE 212th paragraph from Emmerich De Vatel’s “Law of Nations” in his definition of a natural born citizen. <
Wait a minute. Livingstone used a foreign source as a basis for U.S. law? If some jurist tried that today, most conservatives would go nuts.
Is it too late to impeach Justice Livingstone?
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.