Posted on 09/07/2018 4:05:37 PM PDT by davikkm
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) described a pocket-sized version of the U.S. Constitution belonging to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as “that book you carry,” on day three of the judge’s confirmation hearing.
Asking Judge Kavanaugh which unenumerated rights he would do away with, Harris said:
I’m going to ask you about unenumerated rights. You gave a speech praising former Justice Rehnquist’s dissent in Rhodes, there’s been much discussion about that, and you wrote, quote, celebrating his success, that ‘success in stemming the general tide of free-wheeling judicial creation of unenumerated rights,’ that is what you said in celebration of Justice Rehnquist. So ‘unenumerated rights.’ is a phrase that lawyers use, but I want to make clear what we’re talking about. It means rights that are protected by the Constitution even if they’re not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. They are not in that book that you carry.
Harris continued:
What we are talking about is the right to vote, that’s an unenumerated right, the right to have children. The right to have control over the upbringing of your children. The right to refuse medical care. The right to love the partner of your choice, the right to marry, and the right to have an abortion. Now, putting those unenumerated rights in the context of the statement that you made, which was to praise the stemming of the general tide of free-wheeling creation of unenumerated rights, which means you were, the interpretation there is you were praising the quest to end those unenumerated rights. My question to you is which of the rights that I just mentioned do you want to an end to or rollback?
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The Constitution is liberal kryptonite.
That Book says she can’t be President
She is not natural born citizen ?
Health care is not a right. Housing is not a right. Plumbing & electricity are not rights. How about that, Senator Harris?
Every once in a while, a leftist lets the mask slip.
He wouldn’t end any rights under her hypothetical and bull Shiite conjectured pablum.
He would need to hear the case in context and rule on the merits of arguments on both sides before rendering a verdict or interpretation.
I mean, I guess that’s what judges are suppose to do...
The book “Which” says “That” she can not be president....
/S
Wait a minute......
Remember that guy at the Democrat convention, who pulled out his pocket copy of the Constitution, and said he would lend it to Trump???
The liberals were very pleased then with people having the Constitution in their pockets.
So now there is something wrong with peooke having the Constitution in their pockets???
It’s hard to keep up with the liberal criteria for things.
Nope...
Shes a dipwad
Powers are enumerated by the Constitution
Rights are bestowed by our Creator
He should have schooled her
That boat has sailed
I wonder if, to a certain extent, you have to pity the people who actually voted for this person to be their elected representative (instead of being angry with them).
Not long ago, I recall watching a documentary feature on Silicon Valley in which it discussed how it basically got started some time in the late 1950s when a couple of electronics manufacturers located there because of the low taxes, nice climate, and the surrounding area had nice countryside with vineyards, wineries, and other types of farms. To think that a clown like Kamala and her puerile, inane antics would have been given serious attention to in California back then would be basically laughable.
Precisely. It’s like a cross to vampire. Neither Kavanaugh not Trump need to carry it. They have it in their heart. Kamala can go straight to hell.
She has contempt for the Constitution for the same reason as the Kenyanesian Usurper, it says they both cannot be President.
Natural born citizens are naturally citizens because they cannot possibly be anything else, born here of citizen parents.
The children of foreign nationals inherit the nationality(ies) of their foreign national parent(s).
Natural born citizens have only one nationality.
The SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution with regard to POTUS eligibility. But in SCOTUS cases wherein they have given a definition of what a NBC is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Wong Kim Ark vs US, Perkins vs Elg,) they defined an NBC as a person born of TWO, count them TWO citizen parents (the parents don’t have to be NBC) and born in one of the states of the Union, or the territories.
The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner. Rep. Bimgham and Senator Jacob Howard were the principal authors of the 14th amendment. Here is a quote from Howard which clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Until this matter is formally adjudicated by the Court, I will defer to their NBC stare decisis definitions. Harris, Obama and a host of others were not, are not, and can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
Whatever one thinks what the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 is, it is clear that the adoption of the 14th amendment did not alter it in any constitutional sense. How else can you account for the fact that the constitution only specifies for the office of senator and representative citizenship for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively, while the constitution requires the POTUS, to be NATURALLY born, owing allegiance to no other country? That is the ONLY constitutional provision for NBC. Obviously, there is a singular distinction with regard to that office. Under Jamaican and Indian citizenship law, for instance, It is conceivable that Jamaica or India could claim that Kamala Harris, thru her parents, is a citizen who owes allegiance to both of those countries FROM HER BIRTH. It was conferred upon her by those countries citizenship laws, just as valid as our own.
By the way, Ted Cruz (who I admire very much) made a very public demonstration of the fact that he was going to FORMALLY renounce his CANADIAN citizenship. What NATURALLY BORN US citizen has to do such a thing?
The framers of the constitution were patriarchs. (Yes I understand that is completely out of tune with modern sensibilities, but nonetheless it is true.) They believed that the citizenship of the FATHER was conferred upon his children. SCOUTUS incorporated in toto the ENTIRE 212th paragraph of Emerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations in their 1814 Venus merchantman case as they defined what an NBC is. Here is the money quote that Justice Livingstone that was cited when he wrote for the majority, “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
I suspect the reason that many do not want this issue formally examined is that they wish to foster and enhance the globalist influence on the office of POTUS. The NBC requirement was never intended to be a guarantee of allegiance, but a safeguard against undue foreign influence on the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The oath of naturalization requires a formal and legal renunciation of any prior national allegiances.
Jennie Spencer-Churchill, known as Lady Randolph Churchill, was a natural born US citizen, and a British socialite, the wife of Lord Randolph Churchill and the mother of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.
Under US citizenship law at the time of Churchill’s birth, despite the fact that his mother was a NATURAL BORN US citizen, she could not transmit her US citizenship on to young Winston owing to her marriage to a foreign national, Sir Randolph Spencer Churchill, who was Winston’s father. That would not be legally allowed until the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, well after Churchill’s birth in 1874. The Cable Act only confers citizenship, NOT NATURALLY BORN citizenship. It did not refer to, or alter the meaning of an Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5 “natural born citizen” in any way.
Churchill was granted HONORARY US citizenship by an act of Congress on 9 April 1963. It was understood that his birth to a an NBC citizen US mother in Great Britain did not make him a citizen by law.
This is just one more indication of the fact that Obama, Cruz, Rubio OR Harris can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to the office of POTUS. We need to have this issue finally adjudicated by SCOTUS for the first time in US history, and finally get a definitive answer one way or another.
We have enough naturally born anti-american, anti-constitutional cultural marxists in our country now who aspire to be POTUS. I say let’s eliminate all those who don’t even meet the basic Article II criteria. Winnow the opposition.
Anyone care to guess who Willie Brown will be endorsing during the 2020 Rat Party primaries?
Illegals voting is not a right either.
That shipped sailed with OBAMA
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.