Article I, Section 5

provides that "Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members...."

Throughout the presidential election of 2020, Senator Kamala Harris was a member of the United States Senate.

I believe that the Senate is "the judge" of all the "elections" and "returns" of then member Kamala Harris, even if she chooses to resign after their creation for any reason.

As the Senate is "the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members", the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and even the United State Supreme Court have no judicial say whatsoever in any election of a United State Senator.

It appears to me that President Donald Trump has the "big, beautiful court" he longed for in the United States Senate.

I suggest Mitch McConnell and his fellow senators put on black and get to judicial work, fast. There are lots of untimely, ineligible and fraudulent ballots to be appropriately dealt with. C-Span and the Congressional Record can forward on critical evidence to the American people.

In doing its Article I, Section 5 work, the Senate must keep in mind the second paragraph of Article II and the relevant state constitutions as written.

Our elections, including the 2020 election involving Senator Harris of California, must be cleansed insomuch as reasonably possible of foreign and domestic tampering, which might take the form of reasonable numerical adjustments (carefully selected from suggestions made by and via senators) to state "certified" totals.

The Senate as of now apparently also must judge if member and birthright citizen Kamala Harris is a "natural born citizen" eligible under Amendment XII to become Vice President, taking into account that "natural born" was defined by British statutory law when the founding fathers got their legal education. The Senate probably doesn't get to decide on Senator Harris' qualifications for Vice President if Senator Harris resigns from the Senate, but might again get to decide if she wishes to preside over the Senate.

According to someone who used this site: "Harris is not a natural born citizen (her mother is Indian and her father is Jamaican; neither were [US]citizens at the time of Harris’ birth)."

Kamala Harris is in my opinion unqualified and quite possibly numerically unentitled to be Vice President of the United States.

In my state, and probably in many other states, electors for Vice President and President are selected together on each and every ballot, their "elections" and "returns" are physically and electronically one and the same.

Perhaps, as a result of Senate toil and possible United States Supreme Court concurrence, Joe Biden will be able to hide out from Covid in his basement throughout the winter with his canine companions.

"provides that "Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members....""

Thank you for posting Brian Griffen.

With all due respect, several problems with Artice I, Section 5 today are as follows imo.

First, the Founding States gave ordinary qualified citizen voters the power to vote only for House members, not senators or POTUS, since House uniquely had power to originate revenue appropriation bills (1.7.1).

But the state legislatures later foolishly caved to pressure from anti-constitutional republic Progressive Movement to ratify the ill-conceived 17th Amendment. By doing so, state houses unthinkingly gave up the voices of the state legislatures in Congress, effectively putting Congress under mob rule imo.

Also, the constitutionally undefined political parties now blatantly ignore major parts of 12th Amendment (12A) procedures for counting electoral votes. For example, state “winner-take all” laws for electoral votes are unconstitutional under 12A imo

Excerpted from the 12th Amendment: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate [emphasis added]; […]"

Also, note that the states have never expressly constitutionally given ordinary qualified citizen voters the specific power to vote for POTUS like citizens have for members of Congress. So the states letting people vote for president is a politically correct right to give misguided, low-information voters the feeling that they are in control of the Oval Office imo, evidenced by the election fraud currently being presented.

The Senate as of now apparently also must judge if member and birthright citizen Kamala Harris is a "natural born citizen" eligible under Amendment XII to become Vice President, taking into account that "natural born" was defined by British statutory law when the founding fathers got their legal education. The Senate probably doesn't get to decide on Senator Harris' qualifications for Vice President if Senator Harris resigns from the Senate, but might again get to decide if she wishes to preside over the Senate.
According to someone who used this site: "Harris is not a natural born citizen (her mother is Indian and her father is Jamaican; neither were [US]citizens at the time of Harris’ birth)."
Kamala Harris is in my opinion unqualified and quite possibly numerically unentitled to be Vice President of the United States.

This latest resurgence of the birther argument belongs buried with the Obama birther argument.

There are two cloasses of citizen, and two only: natural born and naturalized. Natural born citizens are "born citizens," to use the emphasis applied by John Jay writing to George Washington at the time of the constitutional convention in 1787. Naturalized citizens were not U.S. citizens at birth, but at some later time acquired citizenship via legal process. Only aliens are eligible for naturalization.

Birthers do not cite to British common law when citing authority for the two citizen parent crap which is nowhere in United States law, or British law. It is cited to Emer de Vattel and his book, The Law of Nations. Vattel was Swiss and wrote his volume in French. He died 12/28/1767 before the Declaration of Independence and nothing he said had anything to do with the United States which did not exist in the lifetime of Vattel. For those not acquainted with the term Law of Nations, it is an old fashioned term which has been replaced by the more modern variant, International Law. United States citizenship status is determined solely by United States law. International Law applies to relationships between nation states and has never controlled the domestic determination of the citizenship of anyone, anywhere.

When President Chester Arthur was born, his father was a citizen of Ireland.

See United States Supreme Court, Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 658-59:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore 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.
III. 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. In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying: "Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide." 6 U. S. 2 Cranch 64, 6 U. S. 119.
In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said: "It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

All persons born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States. The Constitution does not say a mumbling word about the status of the parents. If the child is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, i.e., subject to its laws (does not enjoy diplomatic immunity), the child born in the United States is born a citizen thereof. It is constitutional law and no conditions can be added that are not there.

Except for diplomats and royalty, aliens (legal and illegal) are subject to the laws of the United States. The concept that aliens in the U.S. are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States leads to the absurdity that any alien could kill your dogs and rape your wife and daughters and could not be prosecuted for their crimes. The U.S. judicial system cannot prosecute those not subject to the laws of the United States. Accredited diplomats may be expelled but not prosecuted, unless their immunity is waived.

The Constitution does not say a mumbling word about the status of the parents.
OK, so what you’re saying is if George III made a clandestine visit to the new United States of America, and knocked up some two-bit Kamala, and a baby was born of that encounter, and the child visited and spent time with his “Dad” back in Ye Ole England, then that youngster would be eligible to be President?
I do believe George Washington and John Jay might have a disagreement with you on that.

Did the child have immunity, either diplomatic or as a member of royalty? Your hypothetical involves a hypothetical child of the King of England.

Your insight into the minds of George Washington and John Jay does not affect two-plus centuries of United States citizenship law. The law should probably be reconsidered, but until it is, all children born in the United States who do not enjoy immunity from the laws of the United States are born citizens of the United States.

See United States Supreme Court, Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 658-59:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore 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.
III. 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. In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying: "Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide." 6 U. S. 2 Cranch 64, 6 U. S. 119.
In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said: "It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

Every one of the original 13 states adopted so much of the English common law as was not inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. The adoptions were formal in either the state constitution or state statute law.

There was no immigration law and no such thing as an illegal alien at the time the Constitution or the 14th Amendment was adopted.

The author of the citizenship clause, Senator Jacob Howard, clearly declared his intent of his words when he proposed his text in the Senate on May 30, 1866. See Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, page 2890.

Mr. HOWARD. I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]
Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.

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.