Posted on 08/13/2020 1:47:22 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
"Donald Trump's campaign lawyer promotes 'birther' conspiracy theory that Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to be VP because her parents were immigrants".
The Trump campaign's Senior Legal Advisor Jenna Ellis pushed a so-called 'birther' narrative Thursday that Kamala Harris isn't eligible to be vice president because her parents weren't citizens when she was born in Oakland, California.
'It's an open question, and one I think Harris should answer so the American people know for sure she is eligible,' Ellis told ABC News.
Ellis' views on the issue came to light after she retweeted a link to a 'birther' op-ed published on Newsweek's website Wednesday written by right-wing law professor John C. Eastman.
Eastman pointed to how Article 2 of the Constitution says only a 'natural born citizen' can serve as vice president and president, but suggests there's some interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause that could exclude someone in Harris' situation.
He also argued that while the modern view of citizenship includes every person born on American soil, that belief started after Harris was born in 1964. 'Indeed, the Supreme Court has that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen,' he also wrote.
Eastman had run as a Republican in 2010 for California attorney general, but lost his primary. Harris ultimately won the position as a Democrat.
Eastman's op-ed received tremendous backlash, with many pointing out that it echoed the conspiracy theory pushed by President Donald Trump and others during President Barack Obama's tenure.
Josh Chafetz, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, called Eastman's interpretation of eligibility as 'racist nonsense,' in a FactCheck.org post on the controversy.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
marker
>>Nonsense, she was a citizen of the United States from the moment she was born.
AND a citizen of Jamaica from the moment she was born.
No.
And how does that harm Trump?
“This whole notion of Kamala not being eligible is crap. Everyone knows it. “
Sometimes, ya don’t know what ya don’t know.
Fits exactly to the eligibility issue. Most people THINK they know, they DON’T.
It’s a complicated issue that requires a lot of study to become informed. Most people can’t be bothered.
To quote myself...
Born ON U.S. SOIL, to TWO U.S. citizen parentS.
That’s IT. It’s all you need to know about what a “natural born citizen” means.
Does that statement say “ONE” citizen parent? No, it does NOT!
Does it say born in a “foreign” country? No, it does NOT!
Does it say born in a foreign embassy? No, it does NOT!
(foreign embassies are NOT U.S. soil)
Does it say anything about parents being in the military or in service to their country? No, it does NOT!
Does it say anything about dual citizenship? No, it does NOT!
Does it mention the 14th amendment? No, it does NOT!
So, don’t bother yourself with all these extraneous distractions. They DON’T MATTER!
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States says:
“Clause 5. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The last sentence of Article XII.
“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
The term “natural born citizen was well known to the founders. They were aware of and believed in the definition in the book:
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
EMMERICH DE VATTEL
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19
Page 212, (in part)
“...natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens....”
IN the country, parent”S” (plural), who ARE citizen”S” (plural).
“...it was from Vattel’s The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America’s founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System.”
“The majority of this essay will be devoted to reviewing the contents of Vattel’s The Law of Nations, and its documented impact on America’s founding fathers.”
https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_97-01/971_vattel.html
For some “light” reading. /s
Nonsense, she was a citizen of the United States from the moment she was born.
Since you’re so sure, perhaps you could enlighten all of us knuckle dragging morons the key differences between natural born citizenship, statutory citizenship’ and derivative citizenship.
“Dual Citizenship” (in and of itself) DOESN’T MATTER!
Usually (maybe always) so called “Dual Citizenship” is granted to a U.S. citizen by a FOREIGN country because of the heritage of the parents. Usually until the age of maturity.
Does the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA allow foreign countries to affect the citizenship of American citizens?
OF COURSE NOT! Foreign countries can grant anyone they want citizenship to their counties. We can’t stop that or do we (U.S. government) care.
Dual citizenship is a red herring! It doesn’t matter!
What MATTERS is the likely underlying issue of the parents citizenship.
Ted Cruz wasn’t ineligible because he had Canadian AND U.S. citizenship (Dual citizenship). It was because HE WAS BORN IN CANADA! (to a father who was NOT a U.S. citizen and a mother whose U.S. citizenship is in question).
Ted Cruz fails on BOTH counts jus soli AND jus sanguinis
He’s a Cubanadian.
John McCain wasn’t a natural born citizen, PERIOD!
HE WASN’T BORN ON U.S. SOIL! (like Ted Cruz) It doesn’t matter that he was born in the “Panama Canal Zone” (actually he WASN’T. He was born in Colon Panama NOT part of the Panama Canal Zone treaty) In ANY case, the Panama Canal Zone was NEVER a U.S. territory.
The fact that his parents were U.S. citizens and a law that was passed only applied to whether those children would be “native” born citizens or “naturalized” citizens. A distinction without much difference. NOT “natural born” status.
Here are thtee unassailable points of logic that RINOs, leftists, the deep state and New World Order types always run from:
Point 1. The adjective “natural” in the phrase “natural born Citizen” must not be superfluous and without contributing further significant restrictive meaning to the phrase it modifies, therefore a natural born Citizen must be a significantly restricted subset of born citizen (citizen at birth). Clearly the two phrases (citizen at birth and natural born Citizen) must mean significantly different things with the latter being a restrictive subset of the former. To suggest otherwise is insulting to the deliberate, articulate elegance of the Founders who meticulously crafted the Constitution over weeks and months.
Point 2. The Founders wrote the Constitution in simple, everyday language meant to be understood by the ordinary citizen. Words mean things and natural means of or by nature as opposed to of or by man. The only type citizen whose citizenship does not depend on man’s law is a natural born Citizen. All other citizen type are citizens by law, i.e., statutory born citizens.
Why does a natural born Citizen’s citizenship depend on no law? Because they are an inherent 100 percent American solely by the nature (that word again) of their birth circumstances. When one is born in the territory of the USA to two 100 percent USA citizen parents, one is by inherent nature a 100 percent USA citizen because no other outcome is possible, so no law is needed.
Point 3. Three inherent characteristics at birth are generally considered to contribute to citizenship and to one’s natural allegiances, these being: the citizenship of one’s father, the citizenship of one’s mother and the land of one’s birth (normally where one is raised). The Founders’ explicit stated purpose of restricting the presidency to only natural born Citizens was to provide a strong check to prevent the republic from falling prey to a presidency (and military) subverted by foreign influence and intrigue. It strains all logic and common sense to beyond credulity to suggest that the Founders would believe that a strong check would be provided by requiring just one of these characteristics (the least restrictive combination) rather than all three (the most restrictive combination).
Kamala’s nonAmerican citizen birth parents are not a theory, but a fact
Yes, you have Blackstone’s definition, Vattel’s definition, and umpteen other definitions besides. Which is why you need the Supreme Court’s definition.
When did the USSC rule on Natural Born Citizen?
McCain got a pass as implicitly did Rubio and Cruz. The Natural Born clause has been Redacted. At this point anyone on earth is eligible to become President of the United States if he is past the cut-off age and if the Left has a candidate who is only 30 years old then that provision will be redacted also. Amendment is a difficult process. Redaction, a new procedure, only takes a vote of Congress. The Democrats will push their pet Republicans to propose a Resolution and the Republicans will vote for it to exhibit their lack of bigotry.
In a Biden headed government with a Democrat House and Senate much of the Constitution will be Redacted, the 2ng AMD and the First for starters.
That is only because of relatively recent misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment (which was passed only to make former USA slaves citizen so that they would not be stateless). The 14th Amendment does not mention and has nothing to do with the definition of natural born Citizen.
If Harris had been born before the 14th Amendment she would not have been a citizen at all. Obviously the 14th Amendment was not part of the Constitution when the Founders made natural born Citizen a presidential job requirement, so if in the Founders' time someone with birth circumstances exactly Harris would not have even been a citizen, then the Founders could not have possibly considered someone like Harris to be a natural born Citizen. Q.E.D.
Natural born is a higher requirement than just citizen. It is a citizen born of citizen parents. Harris is a dual citizen of Jamaica and the US. The founders were very clear with what they wanted. The problem is to find a judge that will actually hear the case. That is what happened with Obama.
Has she naturalized?
Is she even a citizen?
Can she be a senator?
Nuts. No sane person would accept a POTUS that had divided loyalty to a foreign power.
Period.
As they were during soetoro's "immaculation".
In the UK they had one sovereign with everyone else being subjects. It suited the UK sovereign's needs to be able to impress "subjects" (such as USA citizens in 1812) into the navy, so the definition of natural born subject was made as loose and all encompassing as possible, the exact opposite of purpose of the definition of natural born Citizen.
In the USA our chief executive is a public servant who serves his sovereigns, i.e., each and every sovereign citizen (the exact opposite of the UK system). The natural born Citizen clause is Constitutional job requirement for the presidency (one of three) that was put in place to protect the Republic and its sovereign citizens from foreign intrigue and influence. It makes sense that it would be as restrictive as possible against foreign allegiances in our servant, the Commander-in-Chief, the head of our military might. A natural born Citzen must be free of any and all alien allegiance at birth.
There are no substantive parallels between the opposites, natural born subject (something the Founders were trying to excape) and natural born Citizens. You take your leftist new world order BS and get lost.
If Nasty Kamala gets into office, the potheads will be in big trouble.
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.