Posted on 08/16/2020 12:36:09 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Both the White House and the Trump campaign on Sunday said unequivocally that Sen. Kamala Harris is eligible to serve as vice president and blamed the media for fomenting unfounded questions about the issue.
“Yeah,” White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “This is not something that we’re going to pursue … y’all have spent more time on it than anybody in the White House has talking about this.”
Trump campaign senior advisor Jason Miller said it’s not something anyone on the campaign is talking about.
“In our opinion, it is case closed. End of story. And the only folks who keep bringing it up are the media,” Mr. Miller said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Ms. Harris was born in Oakland, California to a Jamaican-born father and an Indian mother and is a “natural born citizen” eligible to serve as vice president.
President Trump has said in recent days that he has no idea whether a theory put forth by a conservative lawyer calling Ms. Harris’s eligibility into question is correct.
“The lawyer happens to be brilliant lawyer, as you probably know,” the president said on Saturday. “He wrote an article saying there could be a problem. It’s not something that I’m going to be pursuing.”
Newsweek has since apologized for the recent opinion piece from attorney John Eastman, saying it’s “being used by some as a tool to perpetuate racism and xenophobia.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
That's incorrect. They understood it to mean the same thing as "natural born subject" meant in the country they just separated from, changing only "subject" to "citizen" since we are a republic not a kingdom.
Anyone born within British territory was a "natural born subject", and that's exactly the meaning they intended when they wrote "natural born citizen".
If PDJT were to change his mind about it, the comment above will carry zero legal weight.
She will hang herself, why get invoved?
An appearance by Donald Harris at a Trump Rally would be quite an event.
I did not know this had already been litigated.
Thank you for the info.
Did anyone seriously believe that President Trump would embrace a definition of natural born citizen that would've rendered his own children ineligible?
You’re correct about the court cases.
I was thinking of that when another poster said “well you have standing, just sue to block her!”
Crap. All the Leftist judges wiggled out of it in the Obama cases.
It has to be made black and white under the law. As noted, Minor v. Happersett did just that, but is being ignored. Reversing Wong Kim Ark is what Eastman suggested, but the SCOTUS has done nothing. Time to forget them, and do it legislatively, with language they can’t pervert.
And one more thing....being President is not about Affirmative Action for generic foreigners. Just because nobody in her family ever lived here before we had nuclear weapons and were the undisputed rulers of the Planet doesn’t mean we owe it to her to a) make exceptions and b) pass over qualified people in favor of her.
Totally wrong.
You’ve already been given some examples, there are many others.
That was 146 years ago. Has any thing about the findings
changed or been addressed in later rulings that would
impact the original ruling?
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Notice how wikipedia leaves the last part off, “of parents who are citizens.”
Well I guess that laws don’t matter any more, especially in politics.
Anyone ever notice that it always the democrats that put forth candidates that cause problems with the natural citizenship clause. I wonder why they have such a hard time finding candidates that were born in the US to parents that were born in the US. Maybe because they want candidates that are not loyal to the traditional values of the US.
>>And one more thing....being President is not about Affirmative Action for generic foreigners. Just because nobody in her family ever lived here before we had nuclear weapons and were the undisputed rulers of the Planet doesn’t mean we owe it to her to a) make exceptions and b) pass over qualified people in favor of her.<<
well, for b) there are probably literally 150+ million people.
>>Since the left believe that everything Trump says is a lie, will make Harris drop out because Trump lied about her eligibility?<<
It would make her input processor overload and that blinking number she keeps hidden will go out.
Nice thought but it appears that the republicans are too busy worrying about getting reelected and way too scared of being called birther or racist to fight for what is legal anymore.
But the Constitution says “Natural Born citizen,” which they understood to be “born is the US with both parents citizens.”
Call President Trump: Comments: 202-456-1111 Switchboard: 202-456-1414
WH EMAIL CONTACT PAGE https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
At least. I was thinking like 200M but hey...the point’s made, right?!
>>At least. I was thinking like 200M but hey...the point’s made, right?!<<
You have to subtract the people who voted for hiLIARy.
And the idea of a "presidential election" is not considered in the Constitution, is not a requirement for the appointment of Electors, and the LAST thing we need is ANY Federal involvement.
Why do you suppose the authors of the Constitution cut Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Federal judiciary out of the selection. of a new Administration, leaving it entirely to the States?
Because they were smart, that's why.
Nope. In Minor v Happersett the Court simply mentioned the issue and then found it was irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the case before them. The woman whose right to vote was being adjudicated qualified as a natural born citizen under any definition, since she was born in the U.S. and both of her parents were U.S. citizens.
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162
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.