Posted on 07/26/2024 7:59:03 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Jul. 26, 2024) — As posted Tuesday by the “X” account @Kancel Kamala, on August 20, 2020, then-Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Christopher John England sent a “Certification” to then-Alabama Secretary of State John H. Merrill naming the party’s 2020 nominees for President and Vice President, respectively, as “Joseph R. Biden” and “Kamala D. Harris.”
The 18-page set of documents remains available at the Alabama Secretary of State’s website.
As part of the “certification” process, each nominee provided a signed and notarized “Consent to Nomination of the Democratic Party” and “affirmed” he or she was constitutionally qualified for the position sought on November 3, 2020 (pp. 8 and 9 below).
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Abolitionists didn’t want to count them at all; the pro-slavery faction wanted to count them as whole persons.
First, the word “Parent” is absent from US Constitution. May be you can tell me on which page in the US COnstitution it appears in context of NBC status.
Second, Kamala Harris has a ton of past records which show she is extreme left wing San Francisco liberal. To attack her based on NBC status is waste of resources.
Third, I can name 100 democrats who are all multiple generation USA citizens and therefore fit your definition of NBC, who are 100 times more harmful for future of our country than people like Ted Cruz, Vivek Ramaswamy, etc. who did not have citizen parents at the time of their births.
Let’s focus on Natural born citizens (which excludes naturalized citizens) by birth from legal parents who are good for the future of this republic, instead of attacking them based on NBC criteria which are absent from the constitution.
Since “parents” is absent in constitution, and the constitution grants judicial branch to rule on such issues, and the judicial branch never ruled against Obama, why are we wasting energy on this issue?
Her father is not the final authority. Final authority is SCOTUS, and SCOTUS only. Unless SCOTUS rules on her ineligibility, it is just hot air.
But you can always try to get an Amendment to Constitution passed specifically defining NBC status. Until then, it is a waste of energy.
That's covered in the 1898 case:
That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“ALSO-—HIS FATHER WAS NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN-—HE WAS A CITIZEN OF KENYA.”
And let’s not forget... that Obama’s own Kenyan grandmother let it slip that he was, indeed, born IN Kenya, not Hawaii.
“His birth records in Hawaii are sealed forever. They were sealed by Governor Linda Lingle, a republican.”
Hence, the questions raised about Obama’s eligibility. And the pertinent question of.....’WHY’ were Obama’s birth records sealed? Why the need if there was nothing to hide. (rhetorical)
That's why challenges to Kamala Harris are more likely to be successful. In this case, unlike with Obama, we have the documents.
Where and when did Donald Harris state that? Reference, please.
Because the United States is a Constitutional Republic.
There are procedures for challenging the ineligibility of a candidate, including at the state level and within Congress.
All that is required, is exercise of the political will, as in this case, the documents support the facts and provide grounds for cause.
So you don’t agree that a person born of citizen parents has a natural right to acquire their citizenship?
Go after a handful of battleground states and sue to have Kamala removed as ineligible.
Or don't even go after a battle ground state. Find a friendly venue. Texas, maybe. Show up with the mountains of documentation that has been compiled sine 2009.
Get Kamala removed from a single state ballot and you'd guarantee it'll get fast-tracked to SCOTUS.
This would be comparatively easy to do, as the arguments have already been written (Adbul Hassan v. Colorado, 10th Circuit Court, 2012) and the factual claims regarding Kamala Harris's status at birth are well-documented.
“That’s why challenges to Kamala Harris are more likely to be successful. In this case, unlike with Obama, we have the documents.”
Here’s the real question, IMO. Do we even “want” to make Kamala ineligible? With her negative history and her unlikability.... wouldn’t we be better off keeping her on the rat ticket? Of course, even that question is still up in the air ... since we don’t know yet who her ‘running mate’ will be. That could change everything. (things to ponder, going forward)
So this question is somewhat premature, but once there is a nominee, then options will present themselves.
“At present there is no official nominee of the Democrat party for President.
So this question is somewhat premature, but once there is a nominee, then options will present themselves.”
Right. We are jumping the gun, somewhat. Who do you think the running mate will be? I haven’t a clue, myself. At this point in our surreal life experience, anything could happen.
A great new video about Kamala Harris. Turn on the sound and enjoy the cackles: https://twitter.com/i/status/1816974609637417112
During grade school, high school, and college, I was taught that a natural born citizen is a child born of two citizen parents.
A "native" born citizen is a child born in the USA, not necessarily having two citizen parents.
I agree, Obama has already set the precedent but that does change the facts. As usual, the democrats do whatever the F they want and get away with it.
My two cents
At ratification there were two types 1) natural born. 2) naturalized (plus the 14 years of residence required for the presidency). All citizenships were one of those two. The 14th amendment added a third type, born citizen (e.g. slave parents) to undo Dred Scott. The 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 turned it back into two types: naturalized and natural born.
Your chart ignores that 1898 case. That case, interpreting the 14th amendment, led to the following definition: “every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States . . . is a natural born citizen,” https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1394/226610/20220531125853185_Amicus%20Brief.pdf
I have nothing against them. I very much want them to win, and I very much recommend against bringing up this topic in any official manner, such as involving the courts. The Trump campaign needs to absolutely not talk about this and no other group should bring it up as an official complaint either.
All you’re doing with your blathering on about NBC is ignoring the real issues that surrounds Kamala.
My "blathering" is simply acknowledging that what I have always believed, I still believe. I believe the courts have steered the nation wrong and have ignorantly misinterpreted the difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen."
I also believe I am discussing this with people on a website, and I am not trying to make it part of a national campaign. I believe that ship sailed with Obama, and the courts have stiffened their wrongheaded understanding and will simply not entertain anyone questioning their previous judgements.
You’re trying to distance Free Republic and conservatism from focusing on real and serious issues by trolling us with this eligibility bull crap.
Not at all, I consider this a real issue, and a serious issue, though the vast majority of Americans remain ignorant on the topic and unaware of how serious it can be when it is not adhered to as the founders intended.
After they let the first wrong one get through, to question it now would be sexism.
At this point, it isn't really productive to discuss this issue, though some people still feel the need to point out just how far off course we are with the people who keep wanting to run for president.
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.