Posted on 01/08/2019 9:39:48 AM PST by TangledUpInBlue
Should Trump move forward with his border wall and institute a national emergency declaration for its funding, Harris said there would be litigation.
"These are moments in our country where the beauty of the design of our democracy is being tested," she said. "If you think about our democracy or the republic as being a tabletop standing on four legs, there are three independent, coequal branches of government and a free and independent press … those other branches of government and the courts and the press will put the checks and balances on the outrageous conduct of this administration."
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Harris... Hmm, would she run? Be on the ticket? for the black vote only? Because CA doesn't get the Dems anything that they don't already have.
So when the president declares a place a disaster area after a hurricane, we can take it to court?
She of THREE nationalities.
Not a natural born citizen.
Natural born citizens are NATURALLY citizens because they have only ONE nationality.
Oh I love it. Let’s get rolling and file today. Calipornia should not be a disaster area after the fires.
If they can afford free healthcare coverage to the Millions of Illegals they can pay for the fire’s damage themselves.
What a perfect non-answer. Vague, not specific, non committal and a good example of political double talk.
She’s been trained well. She will be ready for 2020.
“She’s been trained well. She will be ready for 2020.”
Indeed.
So far, she’s scoring 100% on the dumb*ss tests.
As an anchor baby, I’m sure she is trying to figure out how she’ll try and explain that despite not being a Natural Born Citizen that she might be qualified. Probably also figuring out how to explain sleeping to the top. And whether she can keep lying about the sexual predator that until recently worked for her. And more... She’s got issues.
Issues that the media will cover up for her.
At no point during her campaign will she ever be asked to explain this to anyone.
She is going to run. She was always at wh when obama was prez. She is doing a book tour now and has been on the night time talk shows.
But we have a President that is not afraid to bring the issue to national attention in a variety of ways.
Another DNC “Rising Star” who turns out to be just a popcorn fart.
The States declare disaster areas.
Let all illegals freely enter California only. Build a wall choking California off from all other states in this once great country prior to idiots from CA. Yes, there are other states. It is high time to cut California off from the USA. Add Hawaii, too. No federal funds for California. Give all real US citizens 180 days to leave that liberal/ trash /progressive/commie/socialist fake state.
Rush said the Dems gave the Prez this power in the 70s after Nixon.
Don't hold your breath waiting for President Trump to declare Donald Jr., Eric, and Ivanka Trump, as well as Kamala Harris constitutionally ineligible to serve as president.
I believe Hillary met with the 20 Dem candidates...but not sure if Kamala was there. She is a Hillary clone.
My last comment to you was in regard to hurricanes etc.
As FYI I found a list of active national emergencies that have been declared. If a President can declare all of these as national emergencies I would think illegal alien overrun should qualify. Most actions previous Presidents took usually involved sanctions or blocking property. So building a wall would be different and the House will likely impeach for it. Trump will factor that into his ultimate decision. Of course they may impeach him anyway no matter what he does.
Here’s a full list of the 31 active national emergencies under the National Emergencies Act, dating back to the Carter administration:
1. Blocking Iranian Government Property (Nov. 14, 1979)
2. Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nov. 14, 1994)
3. Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process (January 23, 1995)
4. Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources (March 15, 1995)
5. Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers (October 21, 1995)
6. Regulations of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba (March 1, 1996)
7. Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan (November 3, 1997)
8. Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans (June 26, 2001)
9. Continuation of Export Control Regulations (August 17, 2001)
10. Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (September 14, 2001)
11. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism (September 23, 2001)
12. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (March 6, 2003)
13. Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest (May 22, 2003)
14. Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria (May 11, 2004)
15. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus (June 16, 2006)
16. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (October 27, 2006)
17. Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions (August 1, 2007)
18. Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals (June 26, 2008)
19. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (April 12, 2010)
20. Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (February 25, 2011)
21. Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (July 25, 2011)
22. Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (May 16, 2012)
23. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (March 6, 2014)
24. Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (April 3, 2014)
25. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (May 12, 2014)
26. Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (March 9, 2015)
27. Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (April 1, 2015)
28. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (November 23, 2015)
29. Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption (December 20, 2017)
30. Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election (September 12, 2018)
31. Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua (November
Harris not qualified to be president. When will republicans stand up on this issue so we can have a USSC case before we re-enact Obama’s fraud.
What to Expect from a Kamala Harris Presidency(pronounced comma-lah)
From DMZFrank | 12/22/2018 2:58:29 PM PST
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 (or a 14th amendment citizen in the case of Wong Kim Ark)is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Venus Merchantman Case of 1814) 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.
This matter is SCREAMING for a definitive ruling on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5, by the SCOTUS for the first time in the history of the US. It is revealing to note what Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president when he said that the high court is “evading” the issue. The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court’s budget in April of 2017. Thomas said that to Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
After two Obama terms, I think they are terrified of the implications of a ruling based on originalist constitutional intent and interpretation. That does not excuse the cowardice in refusing a grant of certiorari for those who wish to have SCOTUS exercise it’s Article III oversight on this matter.
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.