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 ...
From DMZFrank | 12/22/2018 2:58:29 PM PST replied
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.
Minor v Happersett is a relevant case. See the discussion about that case and other fallacies put up by disinformation specialists and trolls in the discussion here to get further information and education as to why Minor v Happersett is very much on point in regards to “natural born Citizen” debates: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html
More U.S. Supreme Court cases relevant to “natural born Citizen” are listed here as well as Congressional attempts to eliminate the “natural born Citizen” qualification term, all of which failed since the “natural born Citizen” term is a national security clause which as understood by the founders and framers would prevent people born with foreign allegiance, dual-citizens and tri-citizens at birth from being constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
understood (and I think many Americans see through her false act, too)... we will see.. thanks
All: Euler Diagrams are used to prove the logical truth or fallacy of an argument. See this Euler Diagram re “natural born Citizen” of the United States: http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/eulerlogicdiagram-citizenshipsets.jpg
Trolls out in force on this one, sounds like they are looking for another “Woman” to promote for President and cross 2 bridges, a Woman and of color
Woo hoo, Jackpot
Sickening
No one had standing to sue per stare decisis, based on a myriad of dismissed suits during the Kenyan usurpation. I don’t think anyone will be granted standing.
Last Obama election I asked the MO Sec State how candidates bona fide are established, she emailed me me the hope and dnc letters of certification. So , the state’s accept a letter signed by the party boss as evidence that their candidate are valid, yeah, right.
” the state’s accept a letter signed by the party boss as evidence that their candidate are valid, yeah, right.”
Do you know if it would be each of the individual states’ party bosses or the national party’s boss?
Hope=GOP. Auto correct...
They were signed by the national party bosses.
Hope=GOP. Auto correct...
They were signed by the national party bosses.
If this ever got to SCOTUS, John Roberts would do some weird mental gymnastics and say they’re both good to go.
The “natural born citizen” issue is dead as a doornail. At this point the candidate could be born on Mars of alien parents and qualify.
Not revelant. Cited in Minor only for the purpose of pointing out that Minor was unquestionable a citizen, they intentionally limited their discussion to persons born of U.S. Citizens born in the United States. More importantly, this discussion was not a part of the opinion, so it’s not relevant.
I note that you don’t cite Minor v. Happersett in your White Paper. Good move. Your WP puts forward a good argument, but I’ve never seen anything that suggests that any Judge of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, nor any Supreme Court Justices have every endorsed your position or anything similarly. If you know of one, I would be very interested in what they have to say. The Federal Courts aren’t interested in this issue and will never agree to hear any case that would resolve the argument.
If either Harris or Gabbard are nominated by the Democrat Party, they will be certified and they will appear on the ballot. Since Harris was born in the United States, her case is a slam dunk. Gabbard would be a more interesting case, but since she was born of a U.S. Citizen mother in a U.S. Territory, she would probably pass muster.
Both of them can be defeated at the ballot box and are unlikely to get beyond the Democrat Primaries. So, tell me how this silliness helps the Reelection of President Trump?
Hi.
Klayman is right you know.
5.56mm
As I seem to recall, dying on that hill got us nowhere. Lots of energy into the abyss, and all for naught.
Harris is an anchor baby because neither of her parents were citizens of this country at the time of her birth. The same applies to Cruz. NOT NBC!
Didn’t stop Obama from running twice. What’s changed?
IMO, it will happen a the state level when a candidate is deemed by election officials to be patently ineligible (e.g. Harris). It will be one of the states with a Republican AG such as Florida and it will work its way to the USSC.
It will be interesting to see whether the very capable author of the linked article raises a challenge in Florida.
The NBC issue is similar to "birthright citizenship" as applied to the newborn of illegal aliens, it has never been litigated, at least before our highest court.
If you are a citizen of the US you are either natural born or naturalized, there are no other types of citizens.
their money?
Doesn’t the law allow them to keep,or transfer it,( U know- 501 c3 klintoon type charity) so they get to keep all those donations after the election is over???
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.
