Skip to comments.Donald Trump's campaign lawyer promotes 'birther' conspiracy theory that Kamala Harris is NOT eligible...
Posted on 08/13/2020 1:47:22 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
"Donald Trump's campaign lawyer promotes 'birther' conspiracy theory that Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to be VP because her parents were immigrants".
The Trump campaign's Senior Legal Advisor Jenna Ellis pushed a so-called 'birther' narrative Thursday that Kamala Harris isn't eligible to be vice president because her parents weren't citizens when she was born in Oakland, California.
'It's an open question, and one I think Harris should answer so the American people know for sure she is eligible,' Ellis told ABC News.
Ellis' views on the issue came to light after she retweeted a link to a 'birther' op-ed published on Newsweek's website Wednesday written by right-wing law professor John C. Eastman.
Eastman pointed to how Article 2 of the Constitution says only a 'natural born citizen' can serve as vice president and president, but suggests there's some interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause that could exclude someone in Harris' situation.
He also argued that while the modern view of citizenship includes every person born on American soil, that belief started after Harris was born in 1964. 'Indeed, the Supreme Court has that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen,' he also wrote.
Eastman had run as a Republican in 2010 for California attorney general, but lost his primary. Harris ultimately won the position as a Democrat.
Eastman's op-ed received tremendous backlash, with many pointing out that it echoed the conspiracy theory pushed by President Donald Trump and others during President Barack Obama's tenure.
Josh Chafetz, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, called Eastman's interpretation of eligibility as 'racist nonsense,' in a FactCheck.org post on the controversy.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Those laws are only applicable to Republicans.
Doesn’t the New York Times make that determination?
Or is it the Washington Post?
Silly president! the rule only applies to Republicans! democrats get a free pass even if they were born in Kenya and were muslims.
Just as was predicted. The dreaded ‘BIRTHER’ Label because she is Black, uh Brown, uh Tan and cannot be questioned.
Ehh. Throw (stuff) on the wall. See what sticks.
This whole notion of Kamala not being eligible is crap. Everyone knows it. But if it adds doubt to someone - then fine. Go for it.
This isnt worth talking about, even if true it wont go anywhere. Hit her on policy.
A simple “That’s racist”, and the Left has finished dealing with that issue.
From now on it’ll be “We’ve answered that question. Next question?”.
Jenna Ellis Is absolutely correct.
To be a Natural Born Citizen, one must be born in U.S. soil and both parents must be American citizens at the time of their birth.
Harris does not meet that qualification.
A question of Constitutional interpretation is hardly a “conspiracy theory”
>>This isnt worth talking about, even if true it wont go anywhere. Hit her on policy
Any reason we can’t do both?
Hit her on policy.
Amen! A lot to hit her on there.
Stupid argument that never worked for Obama and won't pass the smell test for Harris............
They need to focus on her job history rather than some stupid theory about her eligibility to run for office.....
There’s no conspiracy here. THe facts of her birth and parentage are well known.
The legal question is, “What is a Naturally Born Citizen (NBC)?” and “Is Harris an NBC?”
This gets you into philosophy, because the political and judicial process, coupled with some 240 years of removal from the initial sentiment when the term was written, make the answer to the question legalistic, political, and philosophical.
In other words, a packed court will say Kamala is fine. The current court might say Kamala is fine. Logic, and historical analysis, and the intent of the Founders will likely say she is not.
Which approach is the “right” one here?
My take: She is not according to original intent. She is not philosophically in terms of making sure that unlike Obama, “She’s from around here” and working for the home team.
But, looking at it tacticly, I think she’ll get away with it. All that will matter is birthright citizenship going forward.
Doesn’t a conspiracy theory require some sort of imagined conspiracy? Or is the phrase just another term for Wrongthink?
This isnt worth talking about, even if true it wont go anywhere.
And therein lies the problem. The Constitution dictates
the terms. A government or party that ignores them is
out of control, and there is no Constitution.
A condition our founders warned us about...repeatedly.
And Harris will say, "Of course I'm a natural-born citizen. The 14th Amendment says so."
Then what? Without a definitive decision by the courts then it's just the same kind of birther claims that was tried against Obama. How'd that work out?
Any reason we cant do both?
Is she really that formidable of a VP candidate that we should have to? The optics of it are only going to appear that we fear her as a candidate. The result of it is another November 2008. Obama 2.0
Because it worked so well with Obama?
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
She was born a citizen of Jamaica, not of the United States. But of course, the constitution doesnt mean anything anymore. The courts tear it to shreds and ignore its precepts. The media wont report the truth. So in the end, its a fight we cannot win.
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.