Harris and Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President or VP by Attorney Larry Klayman

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

There is no brighter line than what "is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen".

It is is simple and straightforward. Spoken by an authority (Bingham) on the topic. Easy to remember. Easy to teach. And provides an *invaluable* protection against having foreign influence leading the Executive Branch and the Armed Forces.

There is nothing obscure about it.

Was your son born in country of parents who were citizens at the time of his birth? Yes? Excellent. He is eligible. Done. It is that simple, and should be so for everyone to comprehend. Once upon a time it was, and those were better times. We can have them again if people wise up. And that is why I am happy to keep fighting the good fight.

For those who are ineligible ... so what. I'll never be POTUS either. But as good citizens, those who are ineligible can still represent through the heights of Congress. Any one of us is more likely to be struck by lightening than become POTUS anyway. It's just not that big of a deal for the average citizen.

What is a big deal, as we have seen, is allowing a glimmer of foreign anti-American influence into the position of POTUS and CiC. I'll go to the mat time and time again, happily, to work against that. A patriot can do no less.

Canada could write a law today and put it on the books that extends dual citizenship to every human being residing in North America. But that changes nothing within United States' borders. Not a single American citizen would lose their citizenship (natural or naturalized) as the result of a legislative act in Canada.

However, if an American citizen *chose* to take advantage of such newly offered dual citizenship in Canada by voting in a Canadian election, or skipping the Non-Resident Speculation Tax when buying Canadian property, etc, then the citizen has willfully enjoined an allegiance to Canada. Any children born to that citizen from that time forward -- even if born within the jurisdiction of the United States -- would be born of parents owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty and would not be a natural born citizen by virtue of a dual citizen parent.

The Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America (here), taken by your spouse when naturalized, is an oath to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen". A child later born to parents having enjoyed none of the benefits and exercised none of the responsibilities of citizenship in their origin sovereignty following that oath could not be declared by our courts as anything but a natural born citizen.

If at first it seems so simple, then all of the sudden it is not:

“Under the right circumstances, you are allowed to become a citizen of both Canada and the United States, simultaneously. Many people enjoy the benefits of dual citizenship, allowing them to to travel back and forth freely, vote, and otherwise take advantage of the rights of citizens in both countries.

Before thinking about citizenship, however, you must find out whether you qualify to immigrate to either the United States or Canada in the first place. (We’re assuming that you’re already a citizen of one of these countries.) Citizenship is the highest immigration benefit you can obtain in either country, and getting to that point involves many steps.

There is no separate application procedure to apply for dual citizenship. If you’re already a citizen of one of these countries and become a citizen of the other without taking active steps to renounce your original citizenship, you are a dual citizen. It’s as simple as that.

(Note that taking the “oath of allegiance” to the United States, as described below, is not considered a renunciation of your Canadian or other citizenship.)”

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/dual-citizenship-united-states-canada.html

So dual citizenship is possible between the U.S. and Canada, and Canada grants citizenship to the children of Canadian citizens wherever they may be born. And U.S. grants citizenship to kids born in the U.S. with regard to the citizenship of their parents (even illegal aliens, as we unfortunately know).

Whether a person is a Canadian citizen by descent depends on the legislation at the time of birth. Generally speaking, any person who was born to a parent born or naturalized in Canada who has not actively renounced their Canadian citizenship is a Canadian citizen by descent (known as first generations born abroad), regardless of the time of birth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_nationality_law#Canadian_citizenship_by_descent

Is this what concerns you : (Note that taking the “oath of allegiance” to the United States, as described below, is not considered a renunciation of your Canadian or other citizenship.)”

It doesn't matter if Canada considers it a renunciation or not. If you leave your church and join another, your old church won't magically remove you from the rolls either. That doesn't make you any less a member of the new church you've joined. If you attend your new church, not the old one, have a child and see it baptized in the new church, then the child is a child of the new church's congregation -- as natural as can be -- regardless of any claim the old church attaches to the child.

This is not nearly as complex a topic as folks make it out to be. Common sense should suffice, but the waters have been so muddied by a recent president and the triggered feelings of America haters that we've been trained to think its more of hurdle than it is.

The church analogy has nothing to do with this. There isn’t a consitutional provision requiring that someone be born a certain religion. I will say however that Chritianity is somewhat unique in that lineage doesn’t determine religious identity. For Jews and Muslims, if you are born a Muslim, you will die a Muslim, it doesn’t matter what you do in the interim, and any children born to either the father (Islam) or the mother (Judaism) is Muslim or Jewish respectively, again, regardless of what the parent may or may not have done before or after the child was born.

But back to the point, according to your theory it does matter how Canada treats my wife’s U.S. citizenship, because if Canada continues to recognize her as a citizen, and thus my son also as a citizen, then he would not be eligible, but if they don’t recognize her as a citizen, and thus not my son either, then he would have been born owing no foreign allegiance, and would be eligible. This is why that can’t be the rule, otherwise Canada gets to determine who’s eligible to be President of the U.S.

The church analogy is just that ... an analogy. I thought it might help you understand the relationship between governing authorities. If it doesn't skip it. But the analogy is accurate.

according to your theory it does matter how Canada treats my wife’s U.S. citizenship, because if Canada continues to recognize her as a citizen, and thus my son also as a citizen, then he would not be eligible, but if they don’t recognize her as a citizen, and thus not my son either, then he would have been born owing no foreign allegiance, and would be eligible. This is why that can’t be the rule, otherwise Canada gets to determine who’s eligible to be President of the U.S.

Almost. You are almost there. You commented that I believe Canada has a say in the citizenship status within U.S. borders. That is not at all correct. Reread my posts. I have consistently stated that Canada has no influence inside U.S. borders. Canada's rights of legislation extend no further than Canada's borders. What Canada says and does on the topic is meaningless inside the U.S. I completely agree that Canada does NOT get to determine who is eligible to be POTUS.

What is not meaningless is what you and your spouse say and do. As such, when your spouse naturalized, took the U.S. oath renouncing all allegiance to her nation of origin, immigrated in country, pursued no further benefits and fulfilled no further duties as a citizen of her nation of origin thus maintaining a pure allegiance to the United States, and thereafter gave birth within the jurisdiction of the United States to a child also parented by a fellow U.S. citizen, it stands to reason she gave birth to nothing other than a natural born citizen. Canada might claim the child. But they don't get a say inside U.S. borders.

My theory is simply that "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." More importantly it was Rep John Bingham's theory at the time he authored the 14th Amendment. But when he stated it 150+ years ago, he stated it not as theory but authoritatively as fact. And when he stated it as fact, none disputed him because it was common knowledge. In contemporary times many have abandoned common sense protections like this because of triggered liberals with their hurt sensitivities. It's past time we manned-up again.

"Yes, these are different classifications. "people" is everyone, "citizens" are all citizens, "natural born citizens" are that sub-class of citizens that are citizens by birth, not naturalization.

That response presents a self-defeating logic trap inasmuch as you redefine words and argue as though they are the same.

Nonsense, I did no such thing. And I clearly did not define them as the same.

"What can you offer in support of your view that as between “citizens” and “NBC’s” the founders intended a lesser form of citizenship for the leader of the nation? "

What on earth are you talking about? I said nothing like that.

"Big step forward in your thinking."

No, there was no step at all. It may seem so to you because you seem to be terminally confused about this stuff.

Gabbard's parents were both US citizens, and she was born on US territory. So she is a US citizen, natural born.

The question about McCain was whether he actually was born in the Canal Zone. Some have argued that even though his parents were both US citizens that the hospital where he was born was on Panamanian soil. I don't think they're right, but the matter was certainly controversial.

One question involved here is whether the government can acquire territory for the US (Samoa or the Canal Zone) and declare that people born there aren't US citizens -- but it's a moot point when both parents are US citizens.

You’re missing that in 2019 neither Canada nor the U.S. requires any exclusive allegiance. It’s a good question as to why they continue to include the language of exclusivity in the Oath, but practically that’s not the impact. My wife doesn’t have to do anything one way or the other, and yet she and my son both have a theretical allegiance to a foreign sovereign. Do you want to make it a question of fact, like in each case we’ll have to find out exactly what the naturalized dual citizen parent did or did not do, and those actions will determine (retroactively?) the natural born citizenship status of the child? That seems even less workable than having a foreign government’s action being determinative.

You’re missing that in 2019 neither Canada nor the U.S. requires any exclusive allegiance.

Not missed; discarded as irrelevant.

Congress is Constitutionally authorized to make uniform laws of naturalization. An excellent rationale as to why the naturalization oath contains a renunciation is the simple rationale: that after the oath is taken, even if only for a minute, the oath-taker possesses a pure allegiance to the United States. This is literally what the oath produces as all foreign entanglements are fully renounced: a pure allegiance. It is so simple; it does what it says it does.

Whether the oath-taker preserves that allegiance from that minute forward, or not, is a right and responsibility of the newly naturalized citizen as best suits all personal considerations. But no one can argue that the new citizen didn't possess a pure allegiance for at least a brief period of time.

Neither our government nor the government of the nation of origin can force the new citizen to preserve or not-to-preserve that allegiance. If our government cannot force it, and our government cannot verify it (not having access to all foreign government records regarding their citizens), then requiring it is all bark and no bite.

It is discarded as irrelevant.

In this nation we are innocent until proved guilty. Likewise, the allegiance is pure until an accuser successfully proves otherwise. This is not complex thinking at all. The liberal media *make* it complex in an effort to eliminate our borders and destroy our sovereignty. But if you stick to common sense, it all lays out entirely reasonably. This is why the black-robed tyrants silenced Obama's accusers for a trumped up lack of standing. They feared Obama would be proved other than a natural born citizen. And the fear was justified, so they silenced the accusers proactively.

You say your wife and your son have a theoretical allegiance to a foreign government. That's up to you. Likewise they have a theoretical pure allegiance to the United States. Again, that's up to you. The U.S. government will err on the side of "innocence" and give the benefit of the doubt that the allegiance is pure (as it was when the naturalization oath was taken) until such time as it is proved otherwise. Don't exercise the rights and responsibilities of foreign citizenship, or bribe/blackmail black-robed tyrants into silencing your accusers, and it cannot be proved. Simple.

Assuming you did not exercise the rights and responsibilities of foreign citizenship up until the time of your son's birth, he can be nothing but a natural born citizen. What he chooses to do with that, when he reaches his age of majority, is up to him. If he chooses to exercise the rights of a dual citizen, then a dual citizen he makes of himself. Be certain he understands that lesson in civics as he matures. Constitutionally, dual citizens are not eligible for POTUS.

You’re constructing a theoretical fiction in order to make what is in reality a messy situation “simple”. At the “moment” of my wife taking her oath, the reality was (and is) that Canada still recognized (and recognizes) her as a citizen. The intent of the NBC clause has to be to eliminate the possibility of a foreign allegiance that existed in fact as of the person’s birth. Otherwise, why use the words, “natural born”? If the interpretation is simply that dual citizens cannot run for President, then that would be far better achieved by just saying exactly that: at the time of a person’s entering office, they must renounce any other citizenship. There are plenty of ways to acquire dual citizenship other than via birth. I wouldn’t in fact be surprised if we actually face that question at some point down the road, as plenty of American Jews for example have been acquiring Israeli citizenship, without giving up their American citizenship. Would an American born in the United States to two U.S. citizens who had at some point in their life acquired Israeli citizenship be eligible for the Presidency? I don’t think the NBC clause as currently understood would prevent it.

You’re constructing a theoretical fiction in order to make what is in reality a messy situation “simple”.

Horsepucky. The author of the 14th Amendment stated as fact "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." He wasn't wrong and none disputed him. I don't know why you'd want to believe him a liar. Nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment can change our Constitution. For some reason you want to believe your son is not a natural born citizen. Okay, that's your choice, and you should live as you believe.

Canada still recognized (and recognizes) her as a citizen

We, the United States of America, don't care what Canada recognizes. How many times have I said that. They have no more legislative authority inside our borders than we have inside theirs. Your wife swore an oath to the United States and renounced her citizenship in Canada. But for some reason you want to believe she never for a moment possessed a pure allegiance to the United States, even though she raised her hand and swore to that very thing. Okay, that's your choice, and again you should live as you believe.

Would an American born in the United States to two U.S. citizens who had at some point in their life acquired Israeli citizenship be eligible for the Presidency?

Simple question, simple answer : Was the child within the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of his birth with parents having a pure allegiance to the United States? If yes, then he was born a natural born citizen and his parents' actions thereafter arguably cannot take that distinction away from him. Though he might have to deal with their shortsightedness when he comes of age if they do later exercise dual citizenship. It's so simple, that it's elegant. Our Founding generations were clearly more wise than we are today.

You misunderstood my “simple” question: if a child born in the United States to two United States citizens, neither of whom is a dual citizen, and the child subsequently (presumably as an adult) acquires dual citizenship, would that person when they attained the age of 35 be eligible to run for President?

For the record, I’m not trying to argue that my son is not a natural born citizen. He was born a citizen, thus he’s a natural born citizen. My argument is that by complicating the question with whether or not his parents were citizens at the time of his birth, you accomplish very little in terms of protecting the Presidency against foreign allegiances and you sacrifice quite a bit in terms of maintaining a bright line rule that can withstand the left’s assault against the Constitution and national sovereignty.

That said, I do think that the 14th Amendment should not be interpreted to grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who is born here, as has been the interpretation. We know it doesn’t grant citizenship to the children of diplomats because they have not subjected themselves to our jurisdiction, I would say the same should apply to illegal aliens and/or probably temporary non-immigrant visa holders as well. That’s a tangent, but it impacts the question of who would be a “citizen at birth” so it’s relevant.

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.