Posted on 07/13/2019 9:52:40 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
Senator Kamala Devi Harris (D-California) cannot become president unless she is a “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Constitution contains few eligibility criteria for our nation’s highest post. But being born to the country is one of them. Since a vice president must be able to succeed to the presidency, Harris could not run as vice president, either.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requires that only a natural born citizen can serve as president. The Constitution clearly distinguishes between a citizen and a “natural born Citizen.” There is a special case of citizen who is also natural born. An interesting but often-ignored requirement is that one must also have “been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The intent indicates an attempt to ensure allegiance to the United States by a strong connection. This was the result of continued loyalties to the British Crown among Tories and others after the Revolutionary War, where some politicians even suggesting the nation should return to a limited monarchy. The Framers thus wanted to eliminate “family influences” among our presidents.
Some may think of the Fourteenth Amendment. Even if we ignore the requirement that a person born in the country must be “under the jurisdiction thereof,” the Constitution clearly recognizes that not all citizens are eligible to be president.
Both of Harris’s parents were present in the United States under student visas when Harris was born in Oakland, California. They were not U.S. citizens at that time. A student visa requires a non-immigrant intent. That is, one must swear that they have no intent to stay. Harris’ parents appear to have lied. …. continue reading at: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/klayman/190712
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
Consider this: on day 1 the Constitution spoke only of "people", "citizens" and "natural born citizens". It further recognized and included language that made provision for the fact it would be several decades before it would be possible for anyone to be a "natural born citizen".
With regard to your contention that since birth certificates do not provide for a "natural born" option, there must not be such a classification, bear in mind certificates have generally requested the birthplace of both parents.
Current immigration policies even today provide for some to be "natural born citizens" (google it yourself, don't take my word for it.)
Well, there WERE more than 200 lawsuits filed so some people were interested and two states’ Chief Elections Officials (Kansas and Arizona) did demand that Hawaii verify Obama’s birthplace before those states’ Secretaries of State placed Obama’s name on their ballots.
The Supreme Court, since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 (“all persons born or naturalized...”) has come down on the side of only two forms of citizenship. For example: “United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
‘Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
Every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
Yes, these are different classifications. "people" is everyone, "citizens" are all citizens, "natural born citizens" are that sub-class of citizens that are citizens by birth, not naturalization.
"It further recognized and included language that made provision for the fact it would be several decades before it would be possible for anyone to be a "natural born citizen".
Yes, because obviously on July 4, 1776 nobody had been born in the United States. Their parents had nothing to do with it.
"...bear in mind certificates have generally requested the birthplace of both parents."
Because birth certificates are identity documents and establish familial relationships. They also include birthplace, which is sufficient for citizenship questions.
"Current immigration policies even today provide for some to be "natural born citizens" (google it yourself, don't take my word for it.)"
Does that mean something to you?
Not at all. That is taking it to an extreme. But if you have no familial ties to another country the chances are greatly reduced that you will have loyalty to them. It is still free will, but without those ties, the chances are greatly reduced.
We do not elect the president, we elect electors who vote for the president.
It is not required by the constitution that electors even vote for the candidate whom is listed on the ballot as being their candidate.
Apparently the Electors are complete free agents in this regard.
When the constitution was ratified the only people directly elected by the voters were House members. Senators were selected not elected.
I think this was posted to the wrong person
The founders clearly established three kinds of citizens and only one was eligible for the presidency, the Natural Born Citizen, the other two were only eligible to be Congressmen.
They did not put things with no validity in the constitution and meant what they said.
In the 50s and 60s it wasn’t even discussed in the vast majority of civics classes and was never a real issue. My hs education was much superior to the crap they push today and actually had truth in it. I feel privileged.
The information you discuss can be extrapolated from the birth certificate if the parents names as on it. But County Clerks are not charged with investigating any further than the unsworn statements.
secretaries of state are responsible for vetting the people they out on the ballot. When Eldridge Cleever ran for president on the Peace and freedom ticket, the sec of state of Cal asked for his birth certificate. He was not old enough to run and was left off the ballot.
PUT on the ballot
As indicated above the SoS doesn’t look into it any further than verifying a birth certificate. And most don’t even do that.
I wrote a letter to the CAC sos about Obama asking her to call for a birth certificate base don all the national stories and doubt. No response
If 4-5 republican SOSs were to say Harris isn’t qaualified the USSC would take the case in a hot minute.
Calif SOS
ridiculous to propose the founders wanted the son of a british citizen to be commander in chief.
Few things are as disappointing as the inability to get a handle on the corruption in state elections. The Republican SoSs are pretty useless.
in CAL I can’t name 2 republicans at the state level
That response presents a self-defeating logic trap inasmuch as you redefine words and argue as though they are the same.
Use of the word “citizen” in the Constitution recognized jus solis which had long been the prevailing doctrine. The much more exacting jus sanguinis doctrine was applied to a single federal employee out of the entire nation, its leader and commander-in-chief. What is clear and unmistakable is that both Hamilton Jay and George Washington sought to include in the Constitution the highest form of citizenship available for that office
What can you offer in support of your view that as between “citizens” and “NBC’s” the founders intended a lesser form of citizenship for the leader of the nation?
("It further recognized and included language that made provision for the fact it would be several decades before it would be possible for anyone to be a "natural born citizen".)
Yes, because obviously on July 4, 1776 nobody had been born in the United States. Their parents had nothing to do with it.
If you give that a second look you may decide parentage had everything to do with it. It is helpful to recognize that the Constitution provided “Citizens” could immediately serve in the House and Senate and as President. The purpose of the language was for the more demanding NBC standard to evolve once the nation had matured beyond the lifespan of (ordinary) citizens.
("...bear in mind certificates have generally requested the birthplace of both parents.")
Because birth certificates are identity documents and establish familial relationships. They also include birthplace, which is sufficient for citizenship questions.
Bingo! Big step forward in your thinking. Birth certificates are used to establish the newborn infant’s citizenship not that of the parents. The only relevance of the parent’s birthplace is to establish the infant’s type of citizenship.
("Current immigration policies even today provide for some to be "natural born citizens")
Does that mean something to you?
Since the policy expressly requires both parents be citizens, it should mean something to you in your analysis. It demonstrates the government has a more stringent form of citizenship depending on its goals - similar to the founder’s intention for the office of President discussed above.
Defending the border or the very concept of citizenship, both under direct and relentless threat from the globalist threat, are in my opinion very different questions than an obscure 19th century interpretation of a little used constitutional phrase. I was among those who considently advocated for and demanded proof that Barack Obama was born in the United States, and we also know that according to the laws in place at the time of his birth, had he not been born in the United States, he would not have been born a citizen.
So, yeah, because of Trump he was forced to release a fraudulently produced birth certificate, but at least we were able to reinforce the rule that the President of the United States must have been born a citizen to be eligible. I’m sure you would agree that had we just let that question slide, sometime about right now, the traitorous left would be arguing that the precedent set by Obama had essentially negated that requirement.
But if you’re going to go to the mat for something like this, it has to be a bright line. Taking it to analyzing the citizenship of the parents of kids who were without question born in the United States would blur the distinction between who is eligible and who is not to the point that the end result would probably be to weaken that requirement.
In theory the requirement of both citizens is based on the idea that the purpose of the provision was to mitigate against dual loyalties, like if you were born to a foreign citizen, you would have acquired some citizenship rights in the country of your foreign parent(s) that could in theory be exercised at any time, thus placing your loyalty in question. It was of course a real live concern at the time of the founding, as the British Crown recognize citizenship via lineage wherever the child might be born
But in the modern era, requiring two citizen parents does not accomplish that objective. If you take my son for example, he was born in the United States to two U.S. citizens. No problem right? But he has Canadian citizenship and a Canadian passport. How? Because the United States no longer requires renunciation of foreign allegiances upon naturalization, and his mother is a naturalized citizen of Canadian birth.
Maybe you could enunciate a rule that said that nobody with any possible claim to foreign citizenship can become President of the United States, but that is not the text of the provision, so now you have a conflict between “textualism” and “original intent”, which would then potentially split the conservative justices, paving the way for the liberal justices to form a plurality, or a majority with Roberts, for a decision doing away with the provision altogether, which we both know they’d gladly do.
So if you’re interested in defending the general principle that there should be a natural born citizenship requirement in the Constitution, you are best served by settling on an interpretation that is defensible. The simplest, clearest, most broadly understood interpretation of the provision is that one is either a citizen at birth (natural born) or a citizen by immigration (naturalized), and only the former may be President. In other words, immigrants are disqualified from running for President. Only their children may run.
We might be able to defend that over the course of the next few decades. You can bet that there are powerful forces on the left plotting to get rid of it, and open the Presidency to immigrants, but that is our best chance. Trying to talk about which native born citizens can or cannot run only takes us backwards.
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.