Posted on 07/13/2019 9:52:40 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
Senator Kamala Devi Harris (D-California) cannot become president unless she is a “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Constitution contains few eligibility criteria for our nation’s highest post. But being born to the country is one of them. Since a vice president must be able to succeed to the presidency, Harris could not run as vice president, either.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requires that only a natural born citizen can serve as president. The Constitution clearly distinguishes between a citizen and a “natural born Citizen.” There is a special case of citizen who is also natural born. An interesting but often-ignored requirement is that one must also have “been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The intent indicates an attempt to ensure allegiance to the United States by a strong connection. This was the result of continued loyalties to the British Crown among Tories and others after the Revolutionary War, where some politicians even suggesting the nation should return to a limited monarchy. The Framers thus wanted to eliminate “family influences” among our presidents.
Some may think of the Fourteenth Amendment. Even if we ignore the requirement that a person born in the country must be “under the jurisdiction thereof,” the Constitution clearly recognizes that not all citizens are eligible to be president.
Both of Harris’s parents were present in the United States under student visas when Harris was born in Oakland, California. They were not U.S. citizens at that time. A student visa requires a non-immigrant intent. That is, one must swear that they have no intent to stay. Harris’ parents appear to have lied. …. continue reading at: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/klayman/190712
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
xlnt link
in holding every citizen doesn’t have standing, the court told citizens we din’t have the right to a constitutional election
your imagination is getting the best of you. if your parents were born in any state and you were also you would be born a nbc that information is on each persons bc. if they were not then they would show there naturalization papers
persons born in American Samoa are US nationals not citizens because Amer Samoa was determined to be unincorporated, whatever that is. If her father was a US National she is not natural born. I saw a reference other father being a US citizen when he was in Hawaii and ran for public office.
Can you cite his being born in Samoa a non-US citizen for me. If his parent were US thence would be US.
Through birth abroad to United States citizens[edit]
See also: jus sanguinis
Birth abroad to two United States citizens[edit]
A child is automatically granted citizenship if:[2][3]
Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth;
The parents are married; and
At least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child’s birth. INA 301(c) and INA 301(a)(3) state, “and one of whom has had a residence.”
The FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) states “no amount of time specified.”
A person’s record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of citizenship. They may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship as proof of citizenship.
Birth abroad to one United States citizen[edit]
A person born on or after November 14, 1986, is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:[16]
The person’s parents were married at time of birth
One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
The citizen parent lived at least five years in the United States before the child’s birth
A minimum of two of these five years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.
INA 301(g) makes additional provisions to satisfy the physical-presence requirements for periods citizens spent abroad in “honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization.” Additionally citizens, who spent time living abroad as the “dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person” in any of the previously mentioned organizations can also be counted.
A person’s record of birth abroad, if registered with a U.S. consulate or embassy, is proof of citizenship. Such a person may also apply for a passport or a Certificate of Citizenship to have a record of citizenship. Such documentation is often useful to prove citizenship in lieu of the availability of an American birth certificate.
Different rules apply for persons born abroad to one U.S. citizen before November 14, 1986. United States law on this subject changed multiple times throughout the twentieth century, and the law is applicable as it existed at the time of the individual’s birth.
For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:[16]
The person’s parents were married at the time of birth
One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth;
A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.
For persons born to two people who are not married to each other, the person is a U.S. citizen if all the following apply:
the mother (or the father, if child was born on or after June 12, 2017[17][18]) was a U.S. citizen at the time of the person’s birth, and
the mother was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the person’s birth.[19] (For those born prior to June 11, 2017 to a U.S. father out of wedlock, see link.[16])
PS Gabbard was born april 12, 1981.
It remains to be verified if her father was a citizen of the US when she was born
Born a Mexican national from his Mexican national mother who was not a citizen at the time.
Anyone born with more than ONE nationality is not a natural born citizen.
Women should not be commanding the military under any circumstances...
Larry Claymen says she don’t qualify and I believe this lawyer scholar!!!
Larry Claymen says they don’t qualify and I believe this lawyer scholar!!!
Thanx for playing our game. We have consolation prizes.
“It won’t happen because none of Democrats, Republicans, and especially the Courts want to touch this and they won’t.”
As a political and practical matter, I agree with you 100%. The corruption and cowardice with regard to forcing a proper constitutional examination of this matter is both breathtaking and dismaying. Particularly after the elevation of the usurper Obama to the office of POTUS for 8 years.
But odds are often long when waging a righteous fight against destructive and wicked entities. Those sort of principled historical fights are the unique hallmarks of American tenacity, endurance, and courage.
That is all the more reason to find a way to force an examination by a competent court or courts. The current battle over US citizenship, the very denigration of same by the open borders lobby and the border battle itself almost makes it an imperative. President Trump is beseiged and obstructed on this matter from every conceivable quarter.
Our very sovereignty with regard to a crucial qualification for the most important single Federal office hangs in the balance.
After all, the NBC issue has applied to only 45 citizens in the entire history of this nation, and assuming the US lasts for another 504 years? (that issue is in grave doubt too, given current cultural fissures) it would apply to only another 63 2 term presidents.
We are not talking about very many citizens, after all. Let’s get it constitutionally right.
I don’t believe that one of those cases was decided on US constitutional arguements. They were decided on state electoral and procedural grounds, or issues of “standing.”
The actual Article II constitutional issue was never argued on the constitutional merits by opposing counsels before a court of inquiry.
Citizen is NOT the same as natural born citizen. I cannot believe how some cannot see the difference.
To believe citizen is the same as natural born citizen, is to believe the founders would allow the child of an American woman and king George himself to be president.
If you believe this then you need to do alot more studying of our founding. Until you do this, you will be a millstone around the neck of our great republic.
If you ask me what I “want to see”, I’d like to see us return to our Constitution being interpreted strictly according to the original intent of those who wrote it (and those who wrote the various subsequent Amendments).
But I’m just stating a fact, which is that if a principle of law hasn’t been confirmed in the last fifty years, you can bet that the current SCOTUS will largely take a free hand in elucidating it however they see fit. And were they by some miracle to actually take a case challenging the eligibility of a Presidential nominee (extremely unlikely given how far the courts stayed away from the questions about Obama), they will not DQ an otherwise qualified candidate based on what their parents’ citizenship status was at the time of their birth. It’s just not going to happen.
There’s nothing you or I or anyone else can do about that.
The right case must ask the right question. In the 21st Century when women have had the vote for 100 years, women are Governors, Senators, Generals, Supreme Court Justices, it would be foolish and suicidal to assert that a natural born citizen must be a child of a citizen father. Similarly with 50% of births occuring to single mothers, demanding that a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents is never going to succeed.
Under any criteria that might pass muster with the Supreme Court, Barack Obama would have to qualify: born in the United States to an American citizen mother. Forget Kenya, one of the many lies told by Obama. Also forget his criminal acts to conceal whatever he did with his birth certificate to get into college. Same goes for Gabbard, born in an American territory to a ctizen mother.
As of right now, Harris would qualify IAW the 14th Amendment, but a separate challenge to Anchor babies might close the door on this one.
But the chances of 4 SCOTUS Justices agree to hear any challenge to the Natural Born Citizen clause is less likely than Ruth Bader Ginsburg being selected to be an astronaut for the first Mars mission.
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.