Posted on 08/17/2020 7:15:43 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden announced Tuesday that Sen. Kamala Harris of California would be his vice presidential running mate.
Fulfilling an earlier campaign promise to have a minority female running mate, the former vice president took to his official Twitter handle to make the announcement.
“I have the great honor to announce that I’ve picked @KamalaHarris — a fearless fighter for the little guy, and one of the country’s finest public servants — as my running mate,” tweeted Biden.
Harris had previously been a fierce critic of Biden, taking him to task during a Democratic primary debate over his past opposition to federally mandated busing to desegregate schools.
A former district attorney of San Francisco and later the attorney general of California, Harris’ public career has not been without its controversies, especially as she garnered national attention.
Here are five controversies surrounding Harris. They include some of her decisions as attorney general of California, the questioning of a judicial appointee, and a lawsuit filed by a high-profile pro-life activist.
1. THE WILLIE BROWN AFFAIR
In the early 1990s, a then 29-year-old Harris dated former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, age 60, who had been separated but not divorced from his wife since the 1980s.
In a letter published by the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2019, Brown said that while he was dating Harris, he helped to launch her political career.
This included appointing Harris to the California Medical Assistance Commission and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, both in 1994, The Washington Examiner reported.
For her part, Harris has distanced herself from Brown, telling SF Weekly in 2003 that the former mayor, who weathered corruption allegations, was an “albatross hanging around my neck.”
“Would it make sense if you are a Martian coming to Earth that the litmus test for public office is where a candidate is in their relationship to Willie Brown?” she told the publication at the time.
“Willie Brown is not going to be around. He's gone — hello people, move on. If there is corruption, it will be prosecuted. It's a no-brainer, but let's please move on.”
2. Handling of Catholic Church sex abuse cases
In June 2019, multiple news outlets reported on allegations that, while district attorney of San Francisco and attorney general of California, Harris poorly handled Catholic Church sex abuse complaints.
“Harris specialized in prosecuting sex crimes and child exploitation as a young prosecutor just out of law school. She later touted her record on child sexual abuse cases and prosecuting pedophiles,” The Intercept reported at the time.
“But when it came to taking on the Catholic Church, survivors of clergy sexual abuse say that Harris turned a blind eye, refusing to take action against clergy members accused of sexually abusing children when it meant confronting one of the city’s most powerful political institutions.”
Specific allegations argue that Harris did not actively pursue such cases, refused to meet with abuse survivors, and refused to release files regarding clergy abuse to the public.
Some, including attorney Michael Meadows, who has represented victims of clergy abuse, speculated that Harris' inaction was politically motivated.
“There's a potential political risk if you move aggressively against the church,” Meadows told The Associated Press. “I just don't think she was willing to take it.”
In response to the claims, the Harris campaign gave the AP a statement last year touting Harris’ overall history of prosecuting abusers, but did not directly address the issue of clergy sexual abuse.
“Harris has been a staunch advocate on behalf of sexual assault victims, especially child sexual assault victims,” the campaign said at the time. “[Harris] used her position as District Attorney to create the first unit focused on child sexual assault cases in the office's history.”
3. Knights of Columbus opposition
In December 2018, Harris garnered controversy for critically questioning a judicial appointee’s association with the Catholic fraternal group, the Knights of Columbus.
Alongside fellow Democrat Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Harris questioned Brian C. Buescher over his affiliation with the Knights.
“Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose [abortion] when you joined the organization?” Kamala asked Buescher at the time.
“Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality [same-sex marriage] when you joined the organization?”
Kathleen Blomquist, the spokesperson for the Knights of Columbus, denounced the questions from Hirono and Harris as an example of “anti-Catholic bigotry.”
“We were extremely disappointed to see that one’s commitment to Catholic principles through membership in the Knights of Columbus — a charitable organization that adheres to and promotes Catholic teachings — would be viewed as a disqualifier from public service in this day and age,” said Blomquist to the Catholic News Agency at the time.
4. Criminal justice record debate
During a Democratic presidential debate in August 2019, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii took aim at Harris, saying she was “deeply concerned” about Harris’ track record as a prosecutor.
“There are too many examples to cite, but she put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana,” Gabbard said.
“She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California.”
Harris responded, saying that when she was attorney general of California, she “did the work of significantly reforming the criminal justice system of a state of 40 million people, which became a national model for the work that needs to be done.”
“I am proud of making a decision to not just give fancy speeches or be in a legislative body and give speeches on the floor, but actually doing the work of being in the position to use the power that I had to reform a system that is badly in need of reform,” Harris said.
She then went on to state her support for legalizing marijuana and responded to Gabbard's assertion that she owed an apology to all those she wronged while attorney general.
“I think you can judge people by when they are under fire and it's not about some fancy opinion on a stage but when they're in the position to actually make a decision, what do they do,” Harris said.
5. Pro-life lawsuit
In May, pro-life activist and citizen journalist David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress filed a lawsuit against Harris and others in response to his home being raided after he exposed Planned Parenthood's harvesting of aborted baby body parts for profit.
In response to the CMP’s release of videos showing Planned Parenthood violating the law, then California Attorney General Harris ordered a raid on Daleiden's apartment in 2016 where his laptop, hard drives, and unreleased undercover videos were taken.
Daleiden and CMP accused Harris and the other defendants of “a brazen, unprecedented, and ongoing conspiracy to selectively use California’s video recording laws as a political weapon to silence disfavored speech.”
“Daleiden became the first journalist ever to be criminally prosecuted under California’s recording law … because his investigation revealed and he published ‘shock[ing]’ content that California’s Attorney General and the private party coconspirators wanted to cover up,” the lawsuit states.
“Defendants seek their ‘pound of flesh’ from Mr. Daleiden and to chill other journalists from investigating and reporting on that same content.”
#6 - Affair with Gavin Newsom. Wild rumor started in SF that Kammy and now Governor Gavin Newsom were involved when Newsom worked for Willie Brown on the Board of Supervisors.
Supposedly was an open secret that Kammy and Gavin were together.
“There is no legal precedent that establishes it, either. caww is right. It’s a losing issue.”
Then why has it been taught in schools for two hundred years that natural born referred to being born of citizen parents?
And there have been legal precedent established for it over the years.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 extended the privilege of natural born status to children born overseas to citizen parents. Now, the slant has been developed that that is all natural born means. If you read the language closely, it defines natural born as being born of citizen parents, and not defining natural born as being merely children born overseas of citizen parents. The clause is merely extending natural born to that class of people. The writers of the Constitution did not include natural born into the Constitution as a contingency for that minute group of possible candidates for the presidency. That is absurd.
Natural born citizen. The word natural is the key.
The only way one can naturally be a citizen is when one could not be anything else.
Anyone born with more than one nationality is not naturally American.
Domine, non sum dignus. . .
Being [allegedly] "taught in schools" has no bearing on establishing a legal precedent for anything.
The Naturalization Act of 1790
The operative law here is the 14th Amendment, which would supercede any language in a statute passed in 1790.
extended the privilege of natural born status to children born overseas to citizen parents.
Which has exactly zero relevance to persons born on American soil to non-citizen parents.
No, that's not what "natural" in natural born citizen means.
"Anyone born with more than one nationality is not naturally American."
Anyone born within the country is naturally an American.
It hasn't.
That is not what the term conventionally means.
Anyone born with more than one nationality is not naturally American.
Another country's laws cannot possibly have any bearing on who is eligible for the Presidency. If Outer Slobovia tomorrow passed a law making everyone born on American soil a (dual) citizen of both Outer Slobovia and the US, regardless of parentage -- which they are perfectly free to do! -- then, by your logic, nobody born henceforth would be eligible to be President.
Harris' dual citizenship with Jamaica, extended by the laws of Jamaica, is therefore entirely irrelevant. She should renounce it before taking office, of course. Better yet, let's beat her in November and make it a moot issue.
1. It was taught in schools because of legal precedent.
2. The 14th amendment concerned citizenship of former slaves. Had nothing to do with natural born citizenship and says nothing about ridding the Constitution of the natural born requirement for president.
“Which has exactly zero relevance to persons born on American soil to non-citizen parents.”
3. Correct. Nothing in the Constitution prescribes citizenship to persons born on American soil to non-citizen parents. In fact, the 14th amendment expressly disallows it.
Justice Waite disagreed
” 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 (plural) who were its CITIZENS (plural) became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
I was taught that in high school and in college in the 70s, as was every American.
Nobody disputes that. The question is whether those are the only persons who are NBC. Your citation doesn't say that they are.
Also, please cite court decisions by name. "Justice Waite's opinion" is not legal precedent.
So then, name the precedent. Cite the court decision you're talking about. Should be easy.
Correct. Nothing in the Constitution prescribes citizenship to persons born on American soil to non-citizen parents. In fact, the 14th amendment expressly disallows it.
Have you actually read the 14th Amendment?
Here's what it says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof*, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
How do you get from "all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ... are citizens" to "some citizens may be born in the United States but are nevertheless not natural born citizens"?
The language just isn't there.
*The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that the parents are subject to US law, e.g., not diplomats of a foreign power, not members of an invading army, etc. Foreigners who are here under normal conditions are most certainly subject to US law.
Thank you Campion....
I stand corrected.
“So then, name the precedent.”
There are so many that I certainly not going to waste my time doing your freaking research.
However, you mean to tell me that you think that all those hundreds of millions people over two centuries just got that thinking out of their asses?
“Foreigners who are here under normal conditions are most certainly subject to US law.”
There are plenty of Constitutional experts who will tell you that the 14th amendment does not grant citizenship to anchor babies.
Can you explain why the writers of the Constitution used the term “citizen” in giving the requirements to be a Congressman or Senator, but used the term “natural born” when giving the requirements to be President, if they meant one and the same thing? And that the Naturalization Act of 1790 directly defined the term “natural born” as being born of citizen parents? And then extended the term to include children born of citizen parents overseas? And then withdrew that extension five years later?
The fact Obama will be speaking when Harris accepts VP and not with Biden should tell all they want their voters believing Harris will be the President.
The idea is everyone is suppose to be looking at the shinny object Harris..not Biden... nor position Biden to defend himself.
The fact Obama will be speaking when Harris accepts VP and not with Biden should tell all they want their voters believing Harris will be the President.
The idea is everyone is suppose to be looking at the shinny object Harris..not Biden... nor position Biden to defend himself.
To paraphrase Kandi(”Two and a half Men”): “Biden’s campaign is like riding in the backseat of a car driven by a real dumb kangaroo!
6. Her ancestors owned slaves in Jamaica.
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.