The courts have a very liberal definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen”. I have no doubt that Harris would win any contest in that regard in the courts.
This is just a pointless windmill to tilt at.
Indeed you are correct. No matter what the legal and constitutional scholars say on this issue, one thing is clear: the public has been dumbed down.
ANYONE who is born in this country will be allowed to run for President. The OsamaObama precedent has been established.
Agreed. Those who pursue this will be called birthers. There is already legal precedent for “natural born citizen” to mean “citizen at birth”. Better to go after her for her Marxism.
Tilting at windmills.... which the DEMOCRATS specifically did, with Pelosi’s help (and moron Biden as well)... by going OUT of their way to pass a law to the effect that John McCain was a “natural born” American (having been born in the Panama Canal Zone— US Territory). Propaganda wise AS IF that would ever come up with his natural born true American parents— to de-focus:
From. obamaumao.... who quite clearly (except to those who continue to accept proven false documents, and reality of personal history- to wit, his mother certifying him as being one Barack Soetero, as a muslim, and an Indonesian citizen— thereby making him no longer ANY kind of US “citizen” at that point and thus— ineligible to run or be President of the USA. Therefore needing the false “live birth document” created in a State that has created false legends for known communist agents, and many other “cover” documentation for foreign agents, coupled with a completely bogus SS# from Connecticut, which still will not pass e-Verify). This is still not acceptable.
And... uh— still consider the entire unnecessary McCain “legitimization” to be part of this foreign op, made possi le by his Hanoi imprisonment and brainwashing, and possibly/probably done by the permanent US “state”. It being not too extreme to say who did this op using this permanent “govt.” apparat. We’ll have to wait until US Navy sealed records are released (and hell freezes over).
he 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 is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Wong Kim Ark vs US, Perkins vs Elg,) 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.
Not a pointless windmill, why do you think she is so desperate to keep Kavanaugh off the courts
Some people seem to give up so quickly, not me!
Sic Semper Tyrranis!
Get in the game or get off the field
Both parents are foreign born, and neither parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of her birth. You have to live in this country for 5 years before acquiring American citizenship (only 3 if you are married to an American citizen, which neither was). She’ll probably claim she is an anchor baby and a citizen by being born here. DO AWAY WITH ANCHOR BABY CITIZENSHIP!
It is only a dead letter if you give up on contesting it.
defining and enforcing the constitution is now pointless to that “conservative.” It iOS more important now than ever.
It is simple - if you were born of two American citizens then “naturally” you are a citizen.
If there is any procedural need for either parent to become a citizen after you were born then you are not a “natural born” citizen.
Two parents from Sweden or Japan or Russia or wherever who have a child here in America did not birth an American citizen.
This needs to be hammered home!
“This is just a pointless windmill to tilt at.”
America is on that sad height because we have let the left run roughshod over the Constitution...Let them pick and choose which parts to follow. Let them ‘interpret’ it so it’s no longer a Constitution.
Their stance is so liberal that no one has standing to challenge an opponent's status.
The courts have a very liberal definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen”. I have no doubt that Harris would win any contest in that regard in the courts.””’
This was never truly tested & Obama slid in under the radar.
I don’t think the Supreme Court will allow another bite at that apple by another person who is NOT eligible.
I don’t think the Democrat Party will want that much egg on their face.
Not in the SCOTUS after the first Monday of next month she won't.
Agree. An NBC case against US-born person K. Harris will be be tossed out in a minute - as such cases have been in the past.
This stuff is basically a sewing circle for sharing fantasies about the courts somehow overturning precedent in order to make the most conservative interpretation possible of a part of the constitution that is thinly written, and to do so in a way that materially affects a presidential election.
There are better uses for our time.