Posted on 01/27/2019 7:17:13 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
OAKLAND — Sen. Kamala Harris began her Democratic campaign for president Sunday with an attack on President Donald Trump and a promise to unify a country deeply riven along social, cultural and political lines.
Speaking from the steps of Oakland’s City Hall plaza to a crowd that spilled over several downtown blocks, Harris depicted her candidacy as a fight against those “trying to sow hate and division.”
“We are here at this moment in this because we must answer a fundamental question,” Harris said. “Who are we? Who are we as Americans? So let’s answer that question, America. We are better than this.”
Though she never mentioned Trump by name, it was clear to whom she referred, as Harris painted a damning portrayal of the president and his actions.
“When we have leaders who bully and attack a free press and undermine our democratic institutions, that’s not our America,” Harris said. “When white supremacists march and murder in Charlottesville, or murder innocent worshippers in a Pittsburgh synagogue, that’s not our America.”
The speech in Harris’ liberal-leaning hometown came nearly a week after California’s junior senator acknowledged what had long been evident, declaring her presidential candidacy in a symbolic move on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
Barely two years into her freshman Senate term, the 54-year-old lawmaker is trying to become the nation’s first black female president....
(Excerpt) Read more at marinij.com ...
We dont want to unite with you, and your comiirs you little wench, we want to defeat you.
Hillary will eat her lunch ,LOL
Commies.
Brought to you by Obama and his cronies.
Dear God, no! No telling who she has united with to climb the pole to get where she is now.
And that's why she will fail. In what should be one of her biggest career moments, she talks about Trump!
This racist bitch will “unify” just like that racist bastard Obama did
Remember his “ unity” promptly disappeared from Obama’s “messFpge” after November 2008?
Where are the photos of the crowd?
From DMZFrank | 12/22/2018 2:58:29 PM PST
The SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution with regard to POTUS eligibility. But in SCOTUS cases wherein they have given a definition of what a NBC (or a 14th amendment citizen in the case of Wong Kim Ark)is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Venus Merchantman Case of 1814) they defined an NBC as a person born of TWO, count them TWO citizen parents (the parents don’t have to be NBC) and born in one of the states of the Union, or the territories.
The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner. Rep. Bimgham and Senator Jacob Howard were the principal authors of the 14th amendment. Here is a quote from Howard which clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated: “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.”
Until this matter is formally adjudicated by the Court, I will defer to their NBC stare decisis definitions. Harris, Obama and a host of others were not, are not, and can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
Whatever one thinks what the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 is, it is clear that the adoption of the 14th amendment did not alter it in any constitutional sense. How else can you account for the fact that the constitution only specifies for the office of senator and representative citizenship for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively, while the constitution requires the POTUS, to be NATURALLY born, owing allegiance to no other country? That is the ONLY constitutional provision for NBC. Obviously, there is a singular distinction with regard to that office. Under Jamaican and Indian citizenship law, for instance, It is conceivable that Jamaica or India could claim that Kamala Harris, thru her parents, is a citizen who owes allegiance to both of those countries FROM HER BIRTH. It was conferred upon her by those countries citizenship laws, just as valid as our own.
By the way, Ted Cruz (who I admire very much) made a very public demonstration of the fact that he was going to FORMALLY renounce his CANADIAN citizenship. What NATURALLY BORN US citizen has to do such a thing?
The framers of the constitution were patriarchs. (Yes I understand that is completely out of tune with modern sensibilities, but nonetheless it is true.) They believed that the citizenship of the FATHER was conferred upon his children. SCOUTUS incorporated in toto the ENTIRE 212th paragraph of Emerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations in their 1814 Venus merchantman case as they defined what an NBC is. Here is the money quote that Justice Livingstone that was cited when he wrote for the majority, “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
I suspect the reason that many do not want this issue formally examined is that they wish to foster and enhance the globalist influence on the office of POTUS. The NBC requirement was never intended to be a guarantee of allegiance, but a safeguard against undue foreign influence on the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The oath of naturalization requires a formal and legal renunciation of any prior national allegiances.
Jennie Spencer-Churchill, known as Lady Randolph Churchill, was a natural born US citizen, and a British socialite, the wife of Lord Randolph Churchill and the mother of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.
Under US citizenship law at the time of Churchill’s birth, despite the fact that his mother was a NATURAL BORN US citizen, she could not transmit her US citizenship on to young Winston owing to her marriage to a foreign national, Sir Randolph Spencer Churchill, who was Winston’s father. That would not be legally allowed until the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, well after Churchill’s birth in 1874. The Cable Act only confers citizenship, NOT NATURALLY BORN citizenship. It did not refer to, or alter the meaning of an Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5 “natural born citizen” in any way.
Churchill was granted HONORARY US citizenship by an act of Congress on 9 April 1963. It was understood that his birth to a an NBC citizen US mother in Great Britain did not make him a citizen by law.
This is just one more indication of the fact that Obama, Cruz, Rubio OR Harris can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to the office of POTUS. We need to have this issue finally adjudicated by SCOTUS for the first time in US history, and finally get a definitive answer one way or another.
We have enough naturally born anti-american, anti-constitutional cultural marxists in our country now who aspire to be POTUS. I say let’s eliminate all those who don’t even meet the basic Article II criteria. Winnow the opposition.
This matter is SCREAMING for a definitive ruling on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5, by the SCOTUS for the first time in the history of the US. It is revealing to note what Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president when he said that the high court is “evading” the issue. The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court’s budget in April of 2017. Thomas said that to Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
After two Obama terms, I think they are terrified of the implications of a ruling based on originalist constitutional intent and interpretation. That does not excuse the cowardice in refusing a grant of certiorari for those who wish to have SCOTUS exercise it’s Article III oversight on this matter.
She’ll get eaten by her own when one of her competitors to her left asks her how many innocent or otherwise disadvantaged black people she locked up in California.
Her skanky resume is toxic.
“Harris depicted her candidacy as a fight against those “trying to sow hate and division.””
That would be you, bimbo.
So McCain wasn’t a NBC?
Yep, she climbed a lot of poles.
They felt the need to pass a resolution, so I conclude he was not or they wouldn’t have passed a resolution.
If you don’t meet the constitutional requirement, then the only thing that can be done is an amendment.
The USSC can rule, but so far they have peed their pants on Obama who had a british father.
I couldn’t take more than 2 minutes as I caught the beginning of this moonbats speech....lines such as “all peoples...compassion “ The droning of open borders and helping the poor and down trodden ...tripe lies and the people in the audience who want to adore this liberal wench is truly what is wrong in our republic...sheeple for sure.
Says miss personality, who -literally- got to where she is on her knees.
From my point of view Harris and all the commie dem Rats are toxic but especially Harris.
Just an FYI, Harris is going to be on CNN tomorrow night and it is being HEAVILY promoted. Big Media does not care about how she rose to the top of the Dem Party and will work very hard to bully people who think she did it the wrong way. ( I am watching Three Identical Strangers on CNN. I NEVER watch CNN but I really wanted to see this movie.) The Harris Townhall has been advertised perhaps 8 times in an hour and a half. Harris will be CNNs choice.
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.