Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kamala Harris: Documents (a British subject)?
US National Archives ^ | January 21, 2019 | research99

Posted on 01/21/2019 12:25:55 PM PST by research99

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-270 next last
To: Mollypitcher1

See post 176


201 posted on 01/21/2019 5:27:10 PM PST by Captain7seas (UNexit. Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

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.


202 posted on 01/21/2019 5:28:10 PM PST by Widget Jr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

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.


203 posted on 01/21/2019 5:37:53 PM PST by Boomer ( Leftism is toxic poison to a free society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: NELSON111

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.


204 posted on 01/21/2019 5:40:38 PM PST by walkingdead (It's easy, you just don't lead 'em as much....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: research99

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?


205 posted on 01/21/2019 5:49:18 PM PST by Captain7seas (UNexit. Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain7seas

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.


206 posted on 01/21/2019 5:57:41 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin
I find it interesting that you want to open up the Oval Office top foreigners, exactly the opposite of the founders intent.

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.

207 posted on 01/21/2019 6:01:54 PM PST by semimojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Widget Jr

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


208 posted on 01/21/2019 6:19:55 PM PST by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry Bear formily known as Ursus Arctos Horrilibis (or U.A. Californicus))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: BlackAdderess

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.


209 posted on 01/21/2019 6:48:26 PM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gathersnomoss

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.


210 posted on 01/21/2019 6:50:33 PM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Widget Jr

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 !!!


211 posted on 01/21/2019 6:52:15 PM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: research99

A waste of time.
Beating a dead horse.


212 posted on 01/21/2019 6:54:41 PM PST by CaptainK ('No collusion, no obstruction, he's a leaker')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

A waste of time.
Beating a dead horse.


Did you mean “beating dead whores?”


213 posted on 01/21/2019 6:56:07 PM PST by anton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: anton

Only Willie Brown could answer that question.


214 posted on 01/21/2019 6:57:19 PM PST by CaptainK ('No collusion, no obstruction, he's a leaker')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: kabar

“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


215 posted on 01/21/2019 7:00:19 PM PST by Electric Graffiti (Cocked, locked and ready to ROCK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56; Widget Jr

Widjet jr sounds like an afterbirther retread


216 posted on 01/21/2019 7:03:23 PM PST by Electric Graffiti (Cocked, locked and ready to ROCK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Chauncey Gardiner

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.


217 posted on 01/21/2019 7:07:41 PM PST by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
First, I don't think the Cornell Law Encyclopedia is a student paper. I'd sooner trust that than the web page of a PAC that the FEC disbanded in 2016 for not filing anything for three years. I checked the PAC number. Second, there are only two types of U.S. citizens, natural born and naturalized. There is no third category for legally born, yet not natural born. The USSC ruled Ark was a citizen at birth. 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.
218 posted on 01/21/2019 7:42:16 PM PST by Widget Jr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Widget Jr

“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)


219 posted on 01/21/2019 8:05:08 PM PST by Electric Graffiti (Cocked, locked and ready to ROCK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Electric Graffiti

“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?


220 posted on 01/21/2019 8:14:06 PM PST by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-270 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson