Posted on 09/07/2018 3:47:14 PM PDT by Kevin in California
She would instantly burst into fire if he carried a Bible.
“Harris is not a natural born citizen......”
Early life and education(Kamala Harris)
“Harris was born on October 20, 1964, in Oakland, California...”
Sorry, If the above is true Harris is a natural born citizen.”””
I REPEAT:
SHE is a US citizen due to her birth on American soil. She is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. She is NOT eligible to be POTUS or VP or any position where she could rise to the Oval Office by succession.
Both of her parents would have to have already been U S Citizens when she was born, and they did NOT get that citizenship until Kamala was 5 or 6 years old.
One parent is from India, and other is from Jamaica. The came to the USA to study, met, fell in love, married & had Kamala. However, neither of those parents was a USA citizen at the time of her birth.
This is the same problem we had with Obama. We got severely stung then. We cannot let that happen again.
I agree that it is complicated, but we have to keep people informed about the distinction between CITIZEN & NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Sorry, but you are mistaken.
This will be adjudicated in the Supreme Court in the future, I am thinking
Because Obama got away with his shenanigans, it has left people confused.
“I agree that it is complicated, but we have to keep people informed about the distinction between CITIZEN & NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”
—
This is a never-ending argument.
.
not one republican will stand up and say this
"..The Constitution sets out three eligibility requirements to be President: one must be 35 years of age, a resident “within the United States” for 14 years, and a “natural born Citizen.” There is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements (although several cases have addressed the term “natural born” citizen), and this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.
The term “natural born” citizen is not defined in the Constitution, and there is no discussion of the term evident in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787....
.....The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen...
I can see that this point will be litigated, but probably Harris would meet the “natural born” citizen requirement.
Nope. #Karamela be runnin' 2020. Biden will run the table early (look at the primaries) build insurmountable lead; then #Karamela wins California and some of the later primaries as the clear runner-up.
Slow Joe will have to take #Karamela on the ticket as his VP candidate.
They'll get beat (bad), then she runs again in 2024.
“”Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.””
From your link - seems pretty clear but don’t we wish they had made it more clear - one parent or two as in obozo’s case? It the citizenship status of the parents wasn’t considered, we would have “anchor babies” running for president some day. Heck - it will no doubt happen and it will be allowed!
Not much difference between us. Biden is the throwaway candidate while Harris and booker are scheduled. Btw. Harris not a natural born citizen
“”Rubio, Cruz, Haley, Jindal and most importantly, George P. Bush are not natural born citizens and are ineligible.””
Shouldn’t you have included Harris? Boy - if our interpretation of the natural born citizen clause holds true, we can all breathe easier. I don’t think I could face thinking of a presidential campaign with her in it!!!
I see George Prescott Bush was born in 1976 but his mother didn’t become a US citizen until 1979. BUT they’d make him fit just as obozo did with only one parent a citizen...and born here. I’m looking for dates for the others but my housework is calling me....
This is helpful too.....
https://www.thepostemail.com/2018/08/19/is-kamala-harris-eligible-to-be-president/
Not really. Every site I’ve gone to just has people making claims to support whatever their belief is, with no basis given for those claims (except, perhaps, OTHER people who are making similar claims).
The constitution does not specify that a Presidential candidate’s parents have to be natural born citizens. There’s also no doubt that she, herself, was born here.
Therefore, if Harris wants to run, I can’t see any “natural born citizen” issue stopping her. I realize people here want it to be otherwise (I do, as well), but it is what it is.
If there is no distinction between natural born citizen and United States citizen, then the founders were idiots to compose phrases in the Constitution distinguishing the two.
When those phrases were composed for the Constitution, there was no Naturalization law in existence. So, citizenship was not a function of naturalization law. That means there was a distinction between the two. You are assuming they were the same, with no additional requirements for natural born citizens.
You need to go to the below thread and my #50 posted there and a quote from one of the founders/signers John Jay who I would say is/was respected for his knowledge/intellect or why name a school after him?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3685940/posts
::The constitution does not specify that a Presidential candidate’s parents have to be natural born citizens::
<><> No one has said or is saying that the CANDIDATE’S parents have to be natural born citizens....<><>
It’s easy to see the confusion and we all wish it had been clarified better but I’ll take it from the experts instead of insisting on strict wording about parents being citizens or not!
Without careful interpretation of this, we’d have anchor babies running for president some day.....maybe we already have!
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.