"
Posted on 08/15/2020 2:35:33 PM PDT by Ennis85
Well, that didn’t take long.
A non-White American citizen born right here in the United States has gotten a spot on the Democratic presidential ticket, and the birthers have come scurrying out from whatever rock they have been living under since Barack Obama left office.
Within hours of former vice president Joe Biden’s announcement Wednesday of his history-making running mate, once-reputable Newsweek posted a story posing “Some Questions for Kamala Harris About Eligibility.”
The author, John Eastman, a conservative law professor, wrote that “some” are “questioning” whether Harris might be “constitutionally ineligible” to be vice president because, should she have to step into the presidency, she might not meet the Constitution’s Article II requirement that this country’s chief executive be a “natural born” citizen.
Jenna Ellis, who appears frequently these days on cable television as a “senior legal adviser” to the Trump campaign, quickly embraced this nontroversy, retweeting a link to Eastman’s article and later declaring Harris’s eligibility an “open question.” So we are left to assume that the president’s reelection campaign is on board with this line of inquiry, which is reminiscent of President Trump’s own leadership of the “birther” movement when it was first launched against Obama.
Harris is the daughter of immigrants. Her father (from Jamaica) and her mother (from India) were not citizens at the time of her birth in 1964. A birth that — Have I mentioned this? Stay with me here, because this is important — happened in Oakland, Calif., which was then and is now in the United States of America. That means Harris was a U.S. citizen from the first second of her life.
The theoretical and esoteric question of whether first-generation Americans are eligible to be president is booted around from time to time in law-professor circles.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We just don’t want to be 0-2.
U.S. v Wong Kim Ark is probably the other one. Neither case involved the question of what is a natural born citizen so none of the comments supposedly made in the decision are binding as precedent.
By the pre 2008 rules she would be ineligible. She is NOT Natural Born. However the Congress redacted the Constitution to eliminate that clause when they declared that McCain and Obama were Natural Born Citizens. Under that criterion anyone on earth is eligible to be President of the USA if he has attained the age of 35. If the Democrats come up with a candidate they desire who is only 29, the Congress will redact the age clause, too. It is an unorthodox method for changing the Constitution but it has been accepted and supported by the entire political establishment and the great majority of the population.
Wrong. Nothing changed in 2008. She is eligible now just as she was before that.
The following is from Chapter 2 of the Constitution of Jamaica,
A person born in Jamaica after August 5, 1962, or born outside Jamaica after that date to a parent who is a Jamaican citizen, is automatically considered a Jamaican citizen at birth. Furthermore, under current Jamaican legislation, citizens of Jamaica can hold multiple nationalities. And this status does not prohibit serving in the legislature of Jamaica. It is inconceivable to me that the intent of the framers of Article II would have been to allow such a thing for POTUS or VPOTUS.
Harris was born Oct. 20, 1964, and her father was a citizen of Jamaica at the time of her birth. Therefore, the law of Jamaica is clear: Kamala Harris is a citizen of Jamaica, pursuant to Section 3Cb of the Constitution of Jamaica. This law is very similar to the US Immigration and Naturalization Act with regard to children born to US citizens outsider of the boundaries of the US or it’s territories.
Wong Kim Ark was the subject of an 1898 SCOTUS ruling involving citizenship. The court held that Wong Kim Ark was a CITIZEN (not a natural born one) by virtue of the 14th amendment, noting that his Chinese citizen parents were lawfully resident within the US at the time of his birth, and completely self supporting.
The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. It did not exist at the time that Article II was ratified in 1787. The 14th amendment does NOT refer to, or alter the meaning of Article II in ANY way, whatever one thinks that the framers meant for Article II to accomplish.
Harris’s birth status is identical to Wong Kim Ark. She was born in CA to two lawfully resident non citizen parents. She is NOT an Article II eligible Natural Born Citizen. She is a citizen at birth by virtue of the 14th amendment. I believe that Indian and Jamaican law make her a citizen of their countries too, as does US law under the Immigration and Naturalization Act which makes a person born to ANY US citizen ANYWHERE in the world a US citizen too.
Our overlords have decided that this is not an issue worth examining by adjudication. Constitutionalists know that the NBC requirement is designed to protect the office of POTUS from undue foreign influence, and it is worth observing, especially against an Anti-American opportunist like Harris.
Not any more, but it did before the Obama election. Natural Born refers to the progeny of citizens, natural born or naturalized. It does not include non-citizen parentage. That has all been wiped away now by Congressional Declaration which seems a slippery way to amend the Constitution.
The constitution basically states future presidents must be “ natural born” it also states at time of “Ratification” the person must be a “citizen”
What is the difference between the two? Why can a person at time of ratification not be a “ natural “ born, but those following in the future must be a “natural” born to qualify. What was/ is the difference between the two citizens, because there is one, the constitution says so.
So - If an expecting Canadian or Mexican couple have their baby while visiting America, it will be a natural born American citizen.
The law on citizenship is not vague, or even hard to understand. You literally must be pro-actively ignorant to misconstrue the statutes.
No, what is back is the ineligibility of democrat presidential candidates.
The same rule applies to Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio.
I Posted the day Kametoe was selected that anyone who dares to question her Eligibility would be labeled a Birther, which has some negative connotation for reasons I cannot explain.
You aren't quoting the text of the Jamaican Constitution. But no matter. It says someone born in Jamaica is a citizen at birth.
"Wong Kim Ark was the subject of an 1898 SCOTUS ruling involving citizenship. The court held that Wong Kim Ark was a CITIZEN (not a natural born one) by virtue of the 14th amendment, noting that his Chinese citizen parents were lawfully resident within the US at the time of his birth, and completely self supporting."
What's your point? The court did not say he was NOT a natural born citizen. That wasn't the precise question before it. He wasn't running for President. But the logic of that ruling dictates that had they needed to resolve it they would have said he was eligible. Wong Kim Ark does not help the birther cause.
"The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. It did not exist at the time that Article II was ratified in 1787. The 14th amendment does NOT refer to, or alter the meaning of Article II in ANY way, whatever one thinks that the framers meant for Article II to accomplish."
So? Article II doesn't say anything about the citizenship of parents either.
"Harris’s birth status is identical to Wong Kim Ark. She was born in CA to two lawfully resident non citizen parents. She is NOT an Article II eligible Natural Born Citizen..."
That is not what Wong Kim Ark says.
mlo- Troll.
No, that is not what natural born means or ever meant.
Yours is one interpretation of the clause. Another is that “natural born” is merely opposed to “naturalized,” i.e. a citizen by birth.
It's a little harsh, but I tend to agree. That sums up birthers pretty well.
"
“and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
There is no privilege or right to be POTUS. That is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights or any subsequent amendment. It is an Article II provision that requires that certain qualifications be met to assume the office. Absent fulfilling them, you may not constitutionally become POTUS.
This is why the SCOTUS needs to grant certiorari to a party with standing to challenge Harris (Obama) and have this Article III matter directly adjudicated for the first time in a manner that would be consistent with the intent of the framers of that provision.
If her parents were not citizens at the time of her birth she would not have been eligible before the Redaction. If non citizen parents does not disqualify under the NB clause than the clause was meaningless.
What is profession?
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.