Posted on 01/21/2019 12:25:55 PM PST by research99
Monday, January 21, 2019, California Senator Kamala Devi Harris announced her candidacy for the 2020 Presidential election.
Outstanding questions pertaining to her candidacy include her eligibility for this office. The US Constitution specifies only a "natural born" US citizen may hold this post. Definitions of that term, according to the intent of the writers of the Constitution, as well as some later court rulings, indicate this means "born to two US citizen parents." The requirement was intended so that only someone with undivided loyalties to the US, someone not with possible divided loyalties to other nations, could assume the title of commander-in-chief of our armed forces.
“ am offended and highly disappointed in my fellow Americans who have such defeatist attitudes.“
Yup, makes you wonder how long we can last don’t it. I teach my children everyday what it truly means to be an American and what responsibilities we hold. Still I fear for their future. The way we are heading, someone, sometime, is probably gonna have to fight.
History shows us that all nations fall, and many of the greats fell because of corruption and the softening of society. Today we have both.
Kamala is usurping the United States Constitution...again. Her supporters are also culpable....this election is more about the US Constitution than anything else. HRC didn’t abide by it, certainly Obama didn’t, he abused it. Kamala says she loves this country....apparently not enough.
very interesting info.
Will pelousy step up and forge the document like she did for the a##hat imposter
Ain’t gonna happen.
……………………………………………………
It will if WE THE PEOPLE insist it be done! QUITTERS before they even start fighting are lazy cowards!
Anyone running for POTUS can be and should be challenged on any and all their Bios....Obama thought he would get away with his education being locked up, his birth certificate being questioned and not all being answered.....Kamala should not make the same mistake, and again, she is NOT African American, she should stop the press from presenting her that way...her real heritage is just fine.
her office has refused several requests about the date of her parents’ naturalization. The is an indication she knows she is not qualified.
I don't think that's accurate.
According to Wiki Hamilton's first draft didn't have any eligibility requirements. It was only after the convention that he presented Madison with a draft that he claimed he wished he had presented. This draft contained the born as a citizen language but by then the convention was over.
Jay's NBC language was not a response to Hamilton's proposal and I find it interesting that your source tries to muddy the water and make it sound like it was.
US courts that have kept a US-born person off of a ballot for POTUS: Zero.
Chances of Kamala Harris being kept off a ballot due to “NBC”: Same as above.
Where in the Constitution is the Speaker of the House designated the task of vetting presidential candidates?
republicans impotent to stop her
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.
Willie said she was good.
she signed the form for Obama to submit to the secretaries of state her and the chair of the DNC. But I believe she signed it as a democrat official, not the speaker. Now sure.
I find it interesting that you want to open up the Oval Office top foreigners, exactly the opposite of the founders intent.
Obama’s allegiance to Islam and his attempt to weaken the US should serve as a wake up call for those who don’t believe in NBC as president.
I provided the applicable US Code citation. Decades of precedent and practice exist. Jus solis remains the law of the land. Congress and perhaps the courts will have to change it. You can rave and rant all you want. Nothing will come of it.
I support Trump issuing an Executive Order ending birthright citizenship. It will then be challenged in the courts, hopefully ending in SCOTUS. Congress is paralyzed. We need to know from SCOTUS if Congress can end birthright citizenship or must we have a Constitutional amendment. It would be better if Congress would act, but it won’t happen.
and subject to its jurisdiction
that is the big question
TRWOV is a non-immigrant classification which stands for TRANSIT WITHOUT VISA -now TWOV- (not eligible to work) usually passing through the United States to another final destination country...
https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/transit-without-visa-twov
Transit Without Visa (TWOV)
A transit alien traveling without a nonimmigrant visa under section 233 of the INA. An alien admitted under agreements with a transportation line, which guarantees his immediate and continuous passage to a foreign destination.
See also “Transit Alien”
You do realize then that (according to your definition) that Martin Van Buren would have been ineligible, right? After all, his parents were both British subjects and were not "natural citizens." Chester A. Arthur's dad was born in Ireland. Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in England.
Do you REALLY think that the founding fathers had this in mind: A GI, stationed overseas in WW II, meets a gal in England, falls in love and moves back to the states, has a boy and that boy can never be president? Or for that matter...mom and dad are on a PCS to Kadina and have a kid and because that kid was born there, he can never be president?
No. False.
Was Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore and Pierce eligible? Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 only governs who can be president...not who their parents can be and it doesn't make all people of the colonies natural born...just citizens. So, by this definition, every president on the list was ineligible. So, by my count, we've had EIGHT presidents who were president who did not fit the definition. EIGHT. Funny how none of the founding fathers (who knew the definition better than you or I) got their hair in a lather about it.
“The way we are heading, someone, sometime, is probably gonna have to fight”.
History does tend to repeat itself and I do not see us as immune to it.
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.