Posted on 08/21/2020 11:08:54 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Aug. 21, 2020) — At approximately the 20-minute mark in his weekly update from August 14, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton touched on questions arising last week after former Vice President Joseph Biden announced California U.S. Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate in the November 3 presidential election.
Judicial Watch is a self-described “conservative” non-profit organization which frequently takes federal and local agencies to court over their refusal or failure to release government documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The question of constitutional “eligibility” has become a subject which many in the mainstream media ridicule and attempt to silence without delving into the history or intended meaning of the Framers when they insisted that the president and commander-in-chief of the military be a “natural born Citizen.” That designation was mandated only for the nation’s chief executive, while members of Congress were required to simply be a “citizen” and resident in the state they wished to represent for a specific number of years.
Fitton referred to an article by Chapman University Professor of Law John Eastman which focused on the 14th Amendment’s “citizenship” provision and whether or not Harris’s parents at the time of their daughter’s birth were “lawful permanent residents” as opposed to “merely temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas issued pursuant to Section 101(15)(F) of Title I of the 1952 Immigration Act.” ... continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/08/21/tom-fitton-questions-harriss-eligibility/
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
It is unfortunate our politicians thought it not necessary to insert the words "natural born" in the language of the 14thA. Perhaps they overestimated us.
However, it appears to me the 14thA itself operates to demonstrate what "natural born citizen" (NBC) means.
The historical record indicates the Framers recognized only two forms of citizenship in Article 2; that they expressly rejected "citizen" and redrafted Art 2 to include the more exacting NBC.
It is significant, therefore, that with the 14thA our politicians again addressed the two most important forms of citizenship. In the first instance, they addressed in detail the highest form of citizenship known to free societies at the time outside of a royal family: "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction". There is simply no higher form and thus must be what the Framers had in mind.
It is important to recognize the founders intended that jurisdiction to be complete and not diluted by birth to a foreign citizen. (This was no time in history for half measures.)
It would appear from the 14thA that one is either "natural" or "naturalized", the latter a process of curing any "defect" providing a means of assuring allegiance.
Thank you for your work.
Thank you for you kind words. Here following is the link to my article on Euler Diagrams to prove the truth or fallacy of an argument, and its application to the constitutional term (and specific kind of Citizen), “natural born Citizen”, or to parse that ... “natural” (that is by Natural Law) “born Citizen”. It is a subset, the largest subset, of those Citizens who are “born Citizens”, i.e., the largest subset of “Citizens at Birth”. See this article and Euler Diagram for more details: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/euler-diagram/
Here is a much better one: http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/eulerlogicdiagram-citizenshipsets.jpg ... and ... my supporting argument ... https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/euler-diagram/
Your Euler Diagram is ambiguous because you do not define who are the NBC’s, who is a “natural born Citizen” of the USA. So where is your explanation and and logical written argument to support your Euler Diagram in order to have said diagram prove the truth or fallacy of your premises and argument and conclusion. Without your premises and argument and conclusion, you are just drawing circles inside of circles.
Also, I see you liked to hang out and debate (some say troll) at the blog of the citizenship expert and attorney Mario Apuzzo. I find you in this comments thread and his answers to you: https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/05/fox-news-is-spreading-false-information.html
The 14th Amendment has NOTHING to do with being eligible to be President or VP.
It was to give citizenship to slaves & their children.
I see you were involved in spreading copies of some disputed images of Obama’s forged long-form Certificate of Live Birth which was put out by Obama after years of saying online the short-form Certification of Live Birth was all there was. You are mentioned in the comments in this thread re Chief Investigator Mike Zullo of AZ discussion of that forged PDF document and various images of same: https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/11/09/zullo-responds-to-pe-commenter-on-obama-birth-certificate/
So now I understand why you would create an ambiguous Euler Diagram without any supporting premises, argument, and conclusion. See the link above to see what was being discussed and your image in what was being discussed. Are you a political science major by the name of Zoltan?
Don’t we all!
Kamala Harris was a Jamaican Citizen at Birth. My argument for that statement and evidence: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/08/14/u-s-senator-kamala-harris-jamaican-citizen-at-birth/
Mr. 4Zoltan: Do you agree with that statement regarding Kamala Harris being a Citizen at Birth of Jamaica via her Jamaican foreign national father sojourning in the USA? Does it matter to you that Kamala, a dual-Citizen at birth, and possibly more divided allegiances at birth, would be serving in the office of Vice President and one heart beat or a 25th Amendment mental health challenge cognitive decline issue away from being the Commander in Chief of our Military? Where in your unsupported by premises and argument and conclusion using a Euler Diagram to prove the truth or fallacy of your argument do you place Kamala Harris?
Is this Zoltan you? http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page6/files/Curiculum%20Vita Your WordPress.com account is not active other than an image, etc. Here is mine: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/
Since she was born in the US, as Obama was, they are both eligible.
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that he so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.“
And of course Madison said something very similar.
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”
“I see you were involved in spreading copies of some disputed images of Obama’s forged long-form Certificate of Live Birth”
How are they “disputed images”?
The fact remains that both, the image taken by Savanah Guthrie of the LFBC and the pdf image of the LFBC, have a round seal visible in exactly the same place.
The simplest explanation is the paper document photoed by Guthrie was the paper document used to create the PDF.
I prefer the definition by Emer De Vattel the legal treatise in the hands and use by the founders and framers “Principles of Natural Law”. It was used and read by Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Jay and many others: “ ... natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens ...”
See; https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
Also this statement by one of the major contributors to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and subsequent contribution to the 14th Amendment:
“John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”
Also the holding statement in Minor v Happersett (1874/1875):
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
The 1898 WKA decision did not overturn this statement in the holding of Minor v Happersett. It only settled the doubt as to who was a 14th Amendment Citizen at Birth, not who was a “natural born” Citizen at Birth. WKA did not touch on changing the founders intent and meaning of the presidential eligibility clause in Article II Section 1 Clause 5.
CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
No the simplest explanation is the the long-form birth certificate document PDF file, the forged PDF file, was printed out on a printer and a forged seal was placed on it and only Ms. Guthrie was allowed to allegedly hold it and photograph it, per her account. As I recall, she got a rapid career path promotion for her willing or unknowing “loyalty” to the plan to foist that forged PDF image and printout of same on the American public. Obama’s lawyer would not even let anyone else see it or examine it. That is hardly transparency and indication of they had something to hide. The forged seal on a print out of a forged PDF document. Google search on Chief Investigator Michael Zullo of Arizona for more details on the PDF document signs of forgery which he had proven via two independent document examiners. One in the USA and one in Europe. And neither one new of the work of the other.
What I believe is simple.
The laws of other countries do not determine who is eligible to be President of the United States.
You truly believe that being born in America, to foreigners, makes you a natural born citizen? That the founders meant for the king and queen of england, to have a child here, and that child be CIC of all American forces?!
If so, I strongly suggest you crack a history book sometime. You may find it enlightening.
They were afraid the Queen of England was going to come here to give birth, stay here, planning that 35 years later Americans would vote for him to be President? Sure...
No, they were afraid that a foreign prince would come to America and get elected. So they required that people be born here.
"If so, I strongly suggest you crack a history book sometime. You may find it enlightening."
History books aren't going to answer this legal question. Ignoring the fact that none of them will say what you need.
The law is what it is. It's not what you wish it to be.
Kamala Harris is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. She was born with dual-Citizen and divided allegiance at birth. Born with foreign influence, foreign citizenship, and allegiance to a foreign nation. Exactly what John Jay wrote to George Washington in July 1787 to not allow that such a person born with foreign influence on them, once the founding generation was gone (since they had a grandfather clause in Article II for the original citizens), be ever allowed to get command of our military. Thus they put the “natural born Citizen” clause in the presidential eligibility clause as a “strong” check against a future person who had foreign influence on them at birth from being eligible to become President and Commander in Chief. Obama is a classic example of why when you look what he did to our military power under his usurpation of office, since he was not a “natural born Citizen” and was born with foreign influence and allegiance and was fulfilling the Dreams from His Father to disparage and weaken the United States, especially our military power, which Obama did. And then later via the 12th Amendment (last line) that applied to the office of VP too. Kamala Harris is constitutionally NOT eligible to serve as VP: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/Kamala-Harris-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-of-USA.pdf
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.
