Posted on 01/21/2019 12:25:55 PM PST by research99
Monday, January 21, 2019, California Senator Kamala Devi Harris announced her candidacy for the 2020 Presidential election.
Outstanding questions pertaining to her candidacy include her eligibility for this office. The US Constitution specifies only a "natural born" US citizen may hold this post. Definitions of that term, according to the intent of the writers of the Constitution, as well as some later court rulings, indicate this means "born to two US citizen parents." The requirement was intended so that only someone with undivided loyalties to the US, someone not with possible divided loyalties to other nations, could assume the title of commander-in-chief of our armed forces.
See post 176
In Kamala Harris’s case, while her parents may not have been naturalized citizens at the time of her birth, they were in the process of becoming naturalized. That covers the jurisdiction issue. I don’t think any lawyer would want to argue otherwise based on how Ark has been interpreted.
My mistake. It was Pelosi’s job to certify the results of the DNC vetting as stated in another post here.
Same difference really. Two wrongs don’t make it right.
I think we crossed wires somewhere. Parents must be citizens at the time of child’s birth to make the child a NBC. Where the parents are born is irrelevant, only their citizenship at time of birth matters.
For instance if a couple has a child and immigrates to the US all can become citizens. If after this couple become citizens they have another child that child would be a NBC but the older sibling would not.
If it proves out that she is ineligible. Would it not be prudent to provide that documentation to the Sec. of State of at least key States such as Florida in an effort to pre-empt her being on the ballot?
California is the only state now where Kamala is likely to win.
But media-fueled “momentum” (with a little help from behind-the-scenes “deep state” actors) can change that, as it did with BO in 2008.
As a general rule you'll do better if you view the world as if is rather than the way you think it should be.
Cornell Law School says otherwise.
I’d suggest you read the decision directly instead of reading some LS student’s editorial in their Law Review paper. The Wong Decision has been posted on FR several times and it bears no resemblance to Cornel’s editorial.......it is exactly as I said in my original post.
Reading the USSC’s decision directly should clear up your confusion concerning the tern NBC.
I’d suggest you refer to the Constitution’s preamble to learn that our Constitution is based upon “natural law”. Then discover that the Framer’s used a 1757 text titled.....”law of nations; NATURAL LAW” in writing the Constitution. Read Chapter 5 of the text. You’ll see that the decisions of the USSC quote “Law of Nations” directly when they define NBC.
Ignorance can be cured through education.....stupidity such as CORNELL’S LS CANNOT.
Yes FR is an Opinion Forum, but quoting a agenda driven opinion (a weak attempt to legitimize Obama)to support your opinion is itself pretty weak......
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
SHE WAS born in California...
so she is NATIVE BORN...
Neither of her parents were citizens at the time of her birth, so she is NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Constitution requires Natural Born Citizen to be eligible to be President....of any position that succeed President.
Obama snookered us with the collusion of Howard Dean & Pelosi.
We do NOT need an encore.
If the Democrat is black and/or female, they CANNOT BE CHALLENGED.
One parent is from India. One is from Jamaica.
I don’t see any AFRICA in any of that.
Widjet Jr -
You CLEARLY haven’t read the text of the Ark decision.
Although Justice Gray’s dicta [rationale for his opinion] indicates that he believes that Ark was natural born, the dicta DOES NOT COUNT as the decision.
As in ALL SCOTUS decisions,the words in the declaratory statement at the end of the text ARE the decision. NOTHING ELSE.
I NEVER TOLD YOU ARK WAS NATURALIZED, I TOLD YOU THAT HE WAS DECLARED A CITIZEN UNDER THE TEXT OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, AS PER THE WRITTEN DECISION. ARK WAS NOT DECLARED TO BE NATURAL BORN !!!
A waste of time.
Beating a dead horse.
A waste of time.
Beating a dead horse.
Did you mean “beating dead whores?”
Only Willie Brown could answer that question.
“I support Trump issuing an Executive Order ending birthright citizenship.”
He can’t if jus solis is the law of the land as you erroneously claim.
But there is no law making children born to foreign nationals(legal or illegal) on U.S. soil citizens at birth
Widjet jr sounds like an afterbirther retread
Yes, the magic negro of a Kenyan father with a British passport, took care of that.
The so-called Americans in Congress, didn’t even bother to question the narrative.
“By calling Ark a citizen at birth, it means the same thing natural born citizen, even if the court did not explicity use that specific langauge. “
No it doesn’t. Natural born Citizen means born to U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil. The 14th didn’t make anyone a natural born Citizen.
If you’re a U.S. citizen, you’re either natural born or naturalized by positive law. Too many idiots here think naturalization involves a ceremony of some kind. And Ark didn’t even come in under positive law(He was made a citizen by the SCROTUS)
“Natural born Citizen means born to U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil.”
Which part of the Constitution of the United States can I find that statement?
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.