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)

[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.

[CDR Kerchner]

Clarification — In quotes is what Mr. Rogers typed as his quote of Vattel’s sentence in French in Vattel’s legal treatise on Principles of Natural Law in Vol.1 Chapter 19 Section 212 - “Des citoyens et naturels” wherein Vattel is discussing and defining citizenship of a country. See my link below for the correct spelling of the words and punctuation of that key sentence in French, and the correct translation into English which is still the translation of Vattel’s work to this day. See: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ Best to ignore the straw-man disinformation that the far-left OBOTS foist here and read what I (or in the case of others) wrote by reading my (or others) works being attacked here directly:

“Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”

---

My Translation and Analysis of a Key Sentence in Emer de Vattel’s 1758 Treatise on Natural Law in Section 212 -“Des citoyens et naturels”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2023/04/15/my-translation-of-a-key-sentence-in-emer-de-vattels-1758-treatise-on-natural-law-in-section-212-des-citoyens-et-naturels/

[woodpusher]

The issue was brought against Obama. The birthers achieved a record of 0-381. The Birther Scorecard breaks down cases by citation, issue, and result in Trial Court, Appellate Court, and Supreme Court.

BIRTHER SCORECARD (last updated 2015)

https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/birther%20case%20list.pdf

Original decisions, total cases: 226
Birther wins: 0

Total appellate court rulings: 120+
Birther wins: 0

Total supreme court rulings: 35
Birther wins: 0

There are no cases decided by SCOTUS and there are unlikely to be any. The only time "natural born citizenship" really becomes an issue is presidential elections. Standing requires the complainant to show injury particular to himself, not shared by millions of others. Being a voter does not cut it. About the only people who could assert standing would be candidates. No candidate has ever tried it. Complaints have been routinely disposed of by a pre-trial motion to dismiss.

[woodpusher]

The Swiss Vattel, who died before the Declaration of Independence, wrote a book in French called The Law of Nations. Vattel's tome was on INTERNATIONAL LAW. International Law is the modern term for what was then called The Law of Nations. Birthers proclaim determinations of U.S. citizenship to be subject to International Law. Perhaps they can explain how a U.S. Citizenship Court in the Hague would function.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, for Law of Nations states succinctly, “See International Law.”

International law per Black’s is,

Those laws governing the legal relations between nations. Rules and principles of general application dealing with the conduct of nations and of international organizations and with their relations inter se, as well as with some of their relations with persons, whether natural or juridical. Restatement, Foreign Relations (Third) § 101. Body of consensual principles which have evolved from customs and practices civilized nations utilize in regulating their relationships and such customs have great moral force. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matshushita Elec. Co., Ltd., D.C.Pa., 494 F.Supp. 1161, 1178. International customs and treaties are generally considered to be the two most important sources of international law.

INTERNATIONAL LAW has nothing to do with any one nation determining the status of its own citizens. It does not pertain to the internal affairs of a single sovereign. It deals with legal relations between two or more sovereigns.

All of the colonies had birthright citizenship pursuant to the English law. All of the original thirteen states adopted so much of the English common law as was not repugnant to their state constitution. 14A was declarative of the law as it had existed since in Declaration of Independence. It served to place it beyond the reach of Congress to change.

Here is Senator Jacob Howard introducing the Citizenship Clause in the Senate:

Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866

Page 2890

Mr. HOWARD. I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing.an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]

Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan will be read.

The Secretary read the amendment, which was in line nine, after the words "section one," to insert:

All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.

So that the section will read :

Sec. 1. All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Penelope Dreadful]

True, Birthers are like transexuals in that way. The Tranny will holler up and down that gender is a social construct, and that people with penises can be women too. Then, they go get their penis cut off so that they can be a woman.

That same kind of adherence to Delusion is why Birthers are still promoting this silliness after 16 years of loss and failure. There is just something mentally screwed up about some people. Why would any sane person, for example, refuse to get a driver’s license and put fake SovCit tags on their vehicle? Then, argue with the police, get their window busted, get arrested and get their vehicle towed - and then do it all over again? Do they like the attention? Do they like punishment? Or, are they just insane? Probably all three, plus various personality disorders. Same with Birthers.

[DiogenesLamp]

The page is from a book by a single judge from the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania. Roberts was the sole author of the book, A Digest of Select British Statutes.

You left out the rest of the title where he reveals where his information came from.

Several of the Supreme Court Judges of Pennsylvania were still alive when he published this very widely used lawbook, and they did not object. Therefore they concurred.

This work spoke for *ALL* of them and it spoke for the normal understanding of the *ENTIRE* Pennsylvania legal community.

You just don't want to acknowledge this obvious fact, because it blows a very big, and unrecoverable hole in what you wish to believe.

Your attempt to wish away this book and the sources of this information is akin to whistling past a graveyard.

[DiogenesLamp]

Before the poorly-written 14th amendment, black slaves were considered “property” not “persons”. Not really on point with the NBC issue.

Very closely intertwined. You would not believe how closely these two things are intertwined with each other.

William Rawle is the man most responsible for spreading the false claim that American citizenship derives from birth on the soil. He *KNEW* this was wrong, because the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania *TOLD* him this was wrong, in their Unanimous decision in Negress Flora vs Joseph Graisberry.

It was a *UNANIMOUS* decision. Now the court records are lost, though the verdict is remembered, but it is unquestionable that William Rawle tried his "Hey! She was born on the soil!" argument with them, and it didn't fly.

William Lewis was William Rawle's co-counsel on this case, and *HE* is the guy that trained Samuel Roberts, (who published the book mentioned above) and so there can be no question that Rawle had been told what was correct American law, and what was not.

Rawle waited till everybody who could contradict him was dead before he published his "A View of the Constitution" in 1829.

Why did Rawle lie? Why did he publish a book with this very specific lie in it?

He was trying to free the slaves. He was president of the Pennsylvania abolition society, and he was trying to use a legal trick to free the slaves. A trick that had already worked in other states, but a trick which was not working in Pennsylvania.

By arguing that anyone born on the soil was a "citizen", he could claim slaves were free "citizens", and not slaves.

He never had any success with this during his lifetime, but he certainly polluted subsequent understanding of how a citizen was defined or created.

So you see, Freedom for Slaves was *VERY* connected to Presidential eligibility.

[DiogenesLamp]

The birthers achieved a record of 0-381.

In a court system full of ignorant or lying judges.

We can't help it that modern judges are so freaking ignorant and/or willing to lie.

But thankfully, what is factually true does not rely on courts to adjudicate. Other people can bypass these cretins and look at the historical records themselves.

[DiogenesLamp]

That same kind of adherence to Delusion is why Birthers are still promoting this silliness after 16 years of loss and failure.

How long did slavery go on before the idiot courts recognized all humans have a right to be free?

The Courts are pompous clowns with overinflated senses of their own importance.

And like I already told you, this issue has been an issue since at least 1795, so *WAY* longer than 16 years.

Now you go back and hide again, and refuse to address any of the points I make.

[Republican Wildcat]

Kamala Harris was born within the United States to parents legally within the United States and under the authority of the United States. She never had to be naturalized as a US Citizen. That is the definition of what a Natural Born Citizen is. That is what it meant at the time the Framers wrote it into the Constitution. If they meant it to mean something other than what it meant at the time they wrote, they would have redefined it specifically in the text of the Constitution. Moreover, this has been adjudicated multiple times. Merely a cursory amount of research would reveal this.

Stop spamming the forum with this nonsense and distracting from her actual lack of qualifications which not only doesn’t help us win the election because it is an nonissue, but it also makes the right look ignorant and stupid and can be used against us in that manner as well to take focus off of why she should not be elected.

[AFret.]

Do not take the bait.

Harris was born in California, making her a citizen.

Parental nationality is irrelevant.

---

Not so fast...

NATURAL BORN CITIZEN by Morrison R. Waite the 7th SCOTUS Chief Justice

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be a natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common -law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves , upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”