She is not conceivably naturally an American when born with THREE nationalities.
The only way one is naturally a citizen is when one cannot be anything else.
ONE loyalty.
ONE allegiance.
ONE nationality.
THAT’S what the founders were requiring.
I have heard her called:
Indian-American
Jamaican-American
Black-American
Asian-American
African-American
And that is just today.
OH, and Historical-American.
I am waiting for Hysterical-American.
In the Constitution
Article 1 Section 2 lists requirements to be a Representative. “...and been seven years a citizen of the United States...”
It lists the requirements to be a senator as “...and been nine years a citizen of the Unites States...”
Article II, Section 1 lists requirements to be president — “..no person except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of president...and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
It is obvious that a “citizen” is not necessarily a natural born citizen, and the Naturalization Act of 1790, passed by Congress, directly defines natural born as birth from citizen parents.
Harris is not natural born.
If Biden loses in November it's a moot question. If Trump loses then Pence needs to file suit questioning her eligibility since he's the only person with standing to sue. Get the Supreme Court to rule on the question once and for all.
Obama wasn’t eligible
Trump isn’t eligible
Both parents have to be born in America
It we left that behind
By the way I am Trump’s biggest supporter
Kamala is eligible, Ted Cruz isn’t. White Man’s law just applies to white men.
Did your family own slaves
What difference does it make? Obama was born in Canada to a Kenyan and a teen American too young in 1961 to confer her USA citizenship upon him. Not only was he born Canadian, he never even naturalized as American. The US Senate gave him a passport.
Pronounced CAWMAWLAW say it wrong and you are sexist and racist unless you are Jim Crowe Joe.
She, being the child of Aliens, is a Title 8 citizen and not a natural born citizen.
The following is from The Rights Of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions. While it doesn't have the authority of the law (neither did Thomas Jefferson's 1802 Letter to the Danbury Baptists that coined "wall of separation between church and state"), it is a window into contemporary understanding of "natural born citizen." It was written by a man widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.Yes, Paine did use the term "native of the country." Does this mean "native born" instead of "natural born?" We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive. What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.
Paine refers to Engish examples in order to define this. Paine cites "foreigner" and "half a foreigner" as the oppposite to "full natural" connection with the country. So, what is "half a foreigner?"
It seems to me that "half a foreigner" is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have have a "full natural... connection with the country."
Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want "half-foreigners" to be president, and why only people with a "full natural... connection with the country" were allowed to become President.
Now compare Paine's understanding of a "full natural" citizen with the Preamble to the Constitution. The Preamble says that the Constitution was "ordained and established... to secure the Blessings of Liberty... to ourselves and our Posterity."
"Ourselves" means "We the People," the citizens of the United States who established the Constitution and delegated our powers to the states and the federal government.
"Our Posterity" means the children born to We the People, the citizen descendants of citizen parents.
Resident aliens are not "We the People," as they are not citizens and cannot vote for representation in the House of Representatives. Since resident aliens are expected to be here for a long time, it is reasonable to assume that they will have children. Their children may be born here, but they are not citizens descended via parentage, as their parents are still citizens of their home countries. Therefore, children of resident aliens are not the "Posterity" of "We the People."
If resident aliens choose to become citizens (become "We the People"), then their subsequent children will be the posterity of We the People, and will also be citizen descendants of citizen parents.
This is what Paine was speaking of when he wrote of "foreigners" and "half a foreigner." Paine's description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.
This is why I also have postulated that "natural born citizen" wasn't meant to describe a kind of citizenship (Article I Section 8 gives Congress the power to define the rules of Naturalization), it was included as another qualification to be President.
Article II says that one has to be at least 35 years old and resided in the country for 10 years, too, to be President, but we don't say that "citizen over 35" is a class of citizenship just because it's in the same clause describing the President.
So how did "natural born" become a class of citizenship instead of just another narrowing requirement in Article II to be President? What's wrong with removing the phrase and claiming that to be President, one has to be descended from citizen parents, be over 35, and resided in the country for 10 years, without the "natural born" phrase being automatically assumed to mean class of citizenship? The intent of the clause remains unchanged. Note that the simpler term "citizen" is what is used as a qualification for Congress, but with lower age requirements. Why separate "natural born citizen" and ordinary "citizen" if both were to mean the same thing? Why hold the President to a higher standard than Congress if the words were synonymous?
I say that the reason "natural born" was placed into the Constitution in that specific location in Article II is that it was a "term of art," and everyone had a common understanding that it was meant as a qualification to be met in order to become President, along with age and residency. It is what separates the Executive from the Legislative. It is what gives power to the Preamble "to secure the Blessings of Liberty... to ourselves and our Posterity" by ensuring that the highest office in the land was held by citizen children of citizen parents.
Thomas Paine knew all this when he wrote that chapter on Constitutions in 1791.
-PJ
She’s as eligible as the Obozo was and according to his records of proof or the lack there of, he was not eligible to serve as POTUS. That didn’t stop the democrats, they simply altered the official democrat party eligibility form by rewarding it to illegally verify their ineligible candidate. They got away with it for the Obozo and now there is a precedent so to heck with what the US Constitution requires. So now anyone from anywhere in the world can run and become the US President.
That said, we live in a country of law and the final word on this issue is the Supreme Court of the United States.
Absent this issue in a Presidential campaign turning on the question of Natural Born Citizenship under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the Country is now prepared to address the 14th Amendment issue of birth under the jurisdiction in the territory of the US and we might well prevail in the context of Trumps general views on citizenship and immigration.
In the context of the current makeup of the U S Supreme Court and a Presidential campaign, if the issue gets to the Court following an election victory by Biden Harris, the Court will accept the certification by the Speaker that she is eligible and will come down 6-3 in her favor on the eligibility issue.
You can make all the arguments you like about how bad that decision would be but it is where the real world is.
On the other hand, if we can look at the 14th Amendment jurisdiction issue absent a direct impact on the presidential eligibility question, there is a reasonable chance the long term result will be in our favor.
Every American is entitled to his or her own definition of Natural Born Citizen since the Constitution is silent on that point. The problem comes when someone has to sort out all of the definitions floating around out there.
And, forget about the Federal Courts. They won’t touch this issue with a ten foot pole.
I am sure that she’s not eligible, based on the comments here.
But I fear we let the horses out of the barn when we elected Obama.
This approach was a waste of time with Obama.
This approach is a waste of time with Harris.
Pelosi finds this interesting news....
12th Amendment: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." [1]
Constitution A II,S I, C V: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President" [2]
Harris was born to foreign national parents who were both in the country, allegedly on student visas. Donald J. Harris was a Jamaican national [3] and Shyamala Gopalan was an Indian national [4]
Harris was born with Jamaican citizenship. She inherited her foreign fathers foreign citizenship by birthright, regardless of birth location. Jamaican Constitution, Chapter II [5] (a pdf)
The definition for "natural born Citizen" was from a source that is less known today, but was very well known and referenced often in the days of the founders and framers. [6] A source that was not only read from during the Constitutional Convention [7], but the principals from within were used as the legal authority to claim Independence from the crown of Britain in 1776. [8]. Born in country/territory, to citizen parents. [9].
A few months after President Washington was sworn into office, he checked out two books from the New York Society library. One of them was a copy of the very same legal treatise. [10].
The Congress tried to extend the definition to include those born outside the U.S., but again, to two citizen parents, with the Naturalization Act of 1790. [11] Two citizen parents where again key.
The definition was also read uncontested into the Congressional record, on 3 different occasions, by Congressman John Bingham - the father of the 14th Amendment on citizenship. [12]
That Harris is not eligible to be Vice President should be clear to any reasonable thinker and even "amateur" students of the real, recorded history.
Questioning Soebarkah's eligibility was turned into a spectacle of slander and charges of racism, by even most on "our" side. It will be interesting to see if that remains the case this time around.
Has President Trump instilled enough fight back into reasonable Americans that this question of eligibility will be brought to the forefront? Remains to be seen.
If we care about the Constitution, if we care about original intent, it's crystal clear that Kamala Harris is not eligible to be Vice President.