Posted on 08/21/2024 8:20:20 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Challenge Kamala Harris for her constitutionally eligibility to be president? This would be, at best, a waste of time. At worst, it could backfire and make Harris look like a victim of a witch hunt.
The Constitution is clear. A person running for VP must have the same qualifications as someone who runs for president. No one successfully questioned Harris’s eligibility in 2020. So case closed. That ship has sailed.
So is Harris really eligible? I make no comment about that, except to say that the attack is a waste of time. Harris is an idiot. Find better things to attack her with.
Why RFK Jr.? Why not Trump himself?
Trump would have a much better chance at getting a friendly judge in a Trump-friendly court to remove Kamala Harris as being not eligible, in which case it would be fast-tracked to SCOTUS, --where Harris would likely win in a 9-0 ruling.
At least then the matter would be settled.
It’s about time someone finally puts this crap to bed.
https://www.tampafp.com/39th-congress-transcript-anchor-babies-not-u-s-citizens/
To rehash (again):
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. There are a number of court cases where it is defined in this manner with regard to those born with far looser connections to the United States than Marco Rubio, Chester Arthur, (or Kamala Harris). The first case where it seems this was dealt with by a court was Lynch vs. Clarke in New York over a dispute with who could inherit property - there was a law on the books stating that only a “U.S. Citizen” could inherit property, and the presiding judge (apparently in this court the judge was called a “Vice Chancellor”) made this declaration: “Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.” In another case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over the citizenship of a person born who was born to Chinese parents (it was illegal at that time for Chinese immigrants to become U.S. Citizens) it was declared that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, and Justice Field, who wrote the opinion, actually referenced the Lynch v. Clarke decision in the ruling of the Court: “After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.” This case was In re Look Tin Sing. Another U.S. Supreme Court case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 dealing with the same issue of a child born to Chinese parents made the same ruling and also declared him to be a natural born citizen in the ruling by virtue of his right to citizenship by birth. All of those cases were in the 1800s.
There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1939 with the title Perkins v. Elg http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/325.html which dealt with the issue of a woman who was born in the U.S. to Swedish citizens who returned to Sweden with her when she was four years old. Her father was naturalized prior to this as a U.S. Citizen and held dual citizenship. She then came back to the U.S. and was admitted entry as a citizen at the age of 21. For whatever reason, her father later did away with his U.S. Citizenship status and the equivalent of the INS at the time declared she was to be deported. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this, finding she was a natural born U.S. Citizen by right of birth and even declared she was eligible to be President of the United States in the ruling. A past President, Chester Arthur, was born with an Irish father who was not yet naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, though his mother was born in Vermont where Arthur himself was born.
Detractors like to ignore all of information and court cases and instead rely totally on a case Minor v. Happersett - seeming to deliberately misquote the ruling - indeed, the justices specifically stated they were not making a finding of every scenario that constitutes a natural born citizen in their ruling: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be 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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ***For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.***” Minor v. Happersett - full text of ruling https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
Why are we still talking about this? If people want to talk about it, they can go to 4chan and continue the conversation over there.
It's a waste of time for everybody else.
No bite at the apple and that's it? Please.
So is Harris really eligible? I make no comment about that...
You just did that very thing. Nobody questioned her so she's good to go, right?
Yes...retirement...
No bedtime, no wake up time, no alarm clocks.
Monday is “get the garbage to the road day”.
Tuesday is “bring the garbage cans back in day”.
Other than than that, every day is the same.
At first you ask yourself: “Is this Thursday or Friday”...
after a while you really just don’t care because unless
it is Monday or Tuesday, what difference does it make?
Once the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 passed Congress they could be.
USC 8 all the way. It changed everything and was fully Constitutional. Congress acted in their authority.
Time didn’t stop the day of those debates. HUNDREDS, if not thousands of changes have been made to immigration law since then.
Nice resource page.
> Nobody questioned her so she’s good to go, right? <
Well, yes. I do NOT think that she’s automatically “good to go”. This is an important topic, and one that must be settled by the Supreme Court.
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.
Roe v Wade is a perfect example. A BS rulng that was overturned once the right case got to the SC.
Because the usurpation of one Constitutional principle will lead to another if left unchecked.
Why not go piss into the wind instead? It will do about as much good.
There is yard work day too. Sometimes it’s two days, depending on how much there is to do.
Same question about the crystal ball. Generic or brand name?
Try pissing with the wind and see how things go.
again, congress can pass whatever laws they want...
their laws cannot modify the meaning of the Constitution or try to supersede it.
if they pass laws that are not Constitutional then they’ll get tossed once it’s challenged at SCOTUS
IneligibleHarris still won’t be replaced by the DNC since they already destroyed our US Constitution’s POTUS qualification standard with Obama (or whatever his real name may be) and IneligibleHarris as Veep (since it is the same constitutional standard as for POTUS)
the whole idea of the DNC Puppetmeisters is to undermine America and American values and institutions
> Same question about the crystal ball. <
I’m not 100% sure what you mean there. But I’m going to take stab at it, and say you might be right. I’d bet the Supreme Court of today would defer to what the voters (allegedly) said in 2020. Harris is eligible to be vice president. Therefore, she is eligible to be president.
But who knows what a future Supreme Court might say? Perhaps they would interpret the Constitution more strictly, and say that folks like Harris are not eligible.
I’m an old guy. So I might not live long enough to see that. I don’t see that ever happening anyway. In general, this country is getting mushier, not stricter.
Regards,
LR
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.