Posted on 08/15/2020 1:00:02 PM PDT by White Lives Matter
Newsweek backtracked from their article earlier in the week where it claimed that Senator Kamala Harris doesn’t qualify to be Vice President of the United States. Unfortunately for Harris, there is still no evidence her parents were US citizens when she was born.
.......snip.......
da as well.
Newsweek released an op-ed where they claimed Kamala Harris likely does not qualify for the Office of Vice President this week. Professor John Eastman, Professor of Law at Chapman University and Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute raised these concerns based on evidence known to date
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
And like it or not, she was born a Jamaican citizen as well. Regardless of place of birth. She inherited her foreign father's foreign citizenship by birthright.
That make her, at best, a dual citizen at birth. That is precisely what the framers were concerned with. A commander in chief of the military who was born owing allegiance to a foreign power (king/queen particularly).
She was born owing allegiance to a foreign country.
This issue mattered greatly to our founders and the framers who penned our Constitution as well as the father of the 14th Amendment (see above post). It should matter to us as well. Original intent, and all that.
Dual NationalityDual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries, and either country has the right to enforce its laws. It is important to note the problems attendant to dual nationality. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality.
The concept of dual citizenship recognizes that a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both.
June 18, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
June 27 1787. IN CONVENTION (Vattel's legal work is read aloud during the Federal Convention) "...that an equal vote in each State was essential to the federal idea, and was founded in justice & freedom, not merely in policy: that tho' the States may give up this right of sovereignty, yet they had not, and ought not:In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he [Luther Martin] read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers -- Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he [L.M.] read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford:" From Madison's Notes on the Convention.
Similar notes on Vattel being read during the convention can be found in the notes of Rufus King and Robert Yates as well.
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
https://books.google.com/books?id=vTBIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269#v=onepage&q&f=falseSeptember 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "natural born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
I am sympathetic to what you guys are saying, but the hard truth is, our time is better spent pointing out her extreme left views instead of going down this rabbit hole.
“Born ON U.S. SOIL, to TWO U.S. citizen parentS. Simple, THAT’S IT! “
Not born abroad in a U.S. embassy. Not born on a ship, airplane, or U.S. base abroad.
MAYBE not even Alaska (statehood 1959), Hawaii, (statehood 1959). Maybe not U.S. possessions and/or territories as they have varying laws on citizenship. (just being born in a U.S. possession or territory doesn’t automatically make you a U.S. “citizen” (let alone a natural born citizen)
“Dual Citizenship” (in and of itself) DOESN’T MATTER!
Usually (maybe always) so called “Dual Citizenship” is granted to a U.S. citizen by a FOREIGN country because of the heritage of the parents. Usually until the age of maturity.
Does the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA allow foreign countries to affect the citizenship of American citizens?
OF COURSE NOT! Foreign countries can grant anyone they want citizenship to their counties. We can’t stop that or do we (U.S. government) care.
Dual citizenship is a red herring! It doesn’t matter!
What MATTERS is the likely underlying issue of the parents citizenship.
Ted Cruz wasn’t ineligible because he had Canadian AND U.S. citizenship (Dual citizenship). It was because HE WAS BORN IN CANADA! (to a father who was NOT a U.S. citizen and a mother whose U.S. citizenship is in question).
Ted Cruz fails on BOTH counts jus soli AND jus sanguinis
He’s a Cubanadian.
I'd be curious if President Trump believes four of his five children are also ineligible?
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
The 14th amendment was intended for freed slaves who were no subject to the jurisdiction of another country because they had no other country.
Harris’ parents are not US citizens and while subject to the the laws of the US
They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.
So it was never clarified if Osama Obama was really a citizen but being a Democrat it didn’t matter and won’t matter for her.
Thank you! You saved me much time as I wasn’t sure how to get back to the statements of NBCs and allegiances to other countries.
well, in her defense, she is an anchor baby, which could not be said about barack hussein bin soetoro.
(not that either one of them is worth a flip)
This is going to be just another Obama case. The RATS don’t give a RAT’s ass and the rest don’t ask questions. Just another American Tragedy.
With Kamala it’s a lot better documented that she has a “citizenship “ problem then with Zero. It’s still its too complicated for the low-info voter to comprehend.
Under the 14th Amendment’s Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case
of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and
subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental
citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen
Pelosi’s dementia is about as bad as Biden’s.
I believe they addressed that issue by writing that anyone born of citizens of the Territory that would become the USA, would be a Natural Born Citizen. I will have to looK for that part of the writings.
“natural born citizen DOESN’T mean what people THINK it means.
It technically is not a form of citizenship. There are only TWO real forms of U.S. citizenship.
“Native” and “Naturalized”.
“Natural born” is more a “condition” of your birth that ONLY matters if you aspire to the office of president or vice president.
It’s a “status” you either have or have not at the moment of your birth.
1. Are you physically being born on U.S. SOIL. (there are stipulations that come along with what exactly is and is not U.S. soil.)
2. At the moment of your birth, are BOTH your parents U.S. citizens. Native or Naturalized, doesn’t matter.
That’s IT! You can’t earn it, you can’t “fix” it. No do overs.
“A theory kicking around on internet yesterday was that DNC knows she is not eligible but is proceeding as if she were.”
Of course they are! It worked for Obama TWICE!
The silver lining is if they get away with this again, ALL of Donald Trump’s children can do it too.
The reporter on this story on CBS This Morning Saturday today said they were.
Hold the presses. Fake birth certificate being made as we speak.
You are correct, but never subjected to a judicial review with respect for Presidential candidate eligibility. Someone who has standing would need to bring a case, and then that case accepted by the Supreme Court. Won’t happen.
I thought that was put in because at the time, the country was brand new,
and the founders actually WERE citizens of other countries. But it was only
for them, and not intended to make dual citizenship OK for future Presidents in perpetuity.
~Easy
‘Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for holding the office of president or vice president. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.[1]
The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase “natural born Citizen”, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include, subject to exceptions, those born in the United States.
The first nine presidents were all citizens at the adoption of the constitution in 1789, with all being born within the territory assigned to the United States by the Treaty of Paris. All presidents who have served since were born in the United States.’
‘Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States, under clause 5 (emphasis added):
No Person except a natural born Citizen, 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.’
All of the above is from Wikipedia. So a Natural Born Citizen OR a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution’. The 14th Amendment was written to allow for slaves to be citizens of the USA. I am absolutely sure that those who wrote the 14th Amendment NEVER intended for anchor and tourism babies to be eligible to become President.
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.