Is Kamala Harris Eligible to be President?

JUNIOR CA SENATOR MAY RUN IN 2020

by Sharon Rondeau

(Aug. 19, 2018) — Given that California Sen. Kamala Harris’s Wikipedia biography states that she was born in Oakland, CA in 1964 to immigrant parents and speculation exists that she plans to run for president in 2020, Golden State citizen Gary Wilmott has been seeking information as to her citizenship status and whether or not she meets the constitutional requirement of “natural born Citizen.”

The Wikipedia entry states that Harris’s mother, Dr. Shyamala G. Harris, was from India, arriving in Berkeley, CA in 1960.

Dr. Harris passed away in February 2009.  Her “Legacy” obituary states that she arrived alone in the U.S. at the age of 19 after having earned her undergraduate degree from Delhi University.

Kamala’s father, Donald Harris, is a retired Stanford University economics professor whose biography affirms that he arrived in the U.S. in 1961 as an “Issa Scholar” from Jamaica.  It adds that he was born in Jamaica and naturalized in the U.S. but does not provide the year.

Neither parent reportedly was present in the U.S. as a legal resident for five years prior to Harris’s birth, a requirement to apply for naturalization, Wilmott observed in an interview with The Post & Email on Thursday.

After her parents divorced when she was seven, Wikipedia reports, Harris’s mother was granted full custody of her two daughters, after which they moved to Quebec, Canada.   Dr. Harris’s obituary, reposted at SFGate on March 22, 2009, states that her medical research took her to McGill University in Montreal for 16 years.  It further reads, in part:

Her passion for science was augmented by a fervent commitment to social justice. While a student at Berkeley in the ’60s, she became fully engaged in the Civil Rights Movement, leading to a lifelong fight against injustice, racial discrimination and intolerance. She instilled these values in her daughters, who in turn have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of justice and equality – one as the first female elected District Attorney of SF and the other as vice president of Peace and Social Justice at the Ford Foundation in NY.

According to Wikipedia, Harris graduated from Westmount High School in Westmount, Quebec, presumably in 1981 or 1982.  However, Harris’s U.S. Senate biography does not say that she lived and obtained most of her public education in Canada:

Growing up in Oakland, Kamala had a stroller-eye view of the Civil Rights movement. Through the example of courageous leaders like Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, and Charles Hamilton Houston, Kamala learned the kind of character it requires to stand up to the powerful, and resolved to spend her life advocating for those who could not defend themselves.  

Wilmott considers a “natural born Citizen” to be an individual born to two U.S.-citizen parents subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.  He openly admits that his own birth in the United Kingdom to then-British-citizen parents disqualifies him from that subset of Americans.

During our interview, Wilmott told us that at the end of last year, local “scuttlebutt” had it that Harris was eyeing a 2020 presidential run, prompting him to research her constitutional eligibility.  Further supporting speculation that Harris will declare herself a 2020 presidential candidate are numerous articles dating to just after the 2016 presidential election.

An August 15, 2018, an opinion column in the Long Beach Press-Telegram contended that “the betting website Oddshark just published brand new odds for the 2020 presidential race — and for the first time California’s junior U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris has tied Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the betting favorite among potential Democratic candidates to win the election.”  At the same time, the writer believes “that the soft-on-crime policies that Harris helped pass while serving as the district attorney of San Francisco and California attorney general directly contributed to the complete breakdown of one of America’s most beautiful cities,” referring to San Francisco.

The writer’s views on Harris’s approach to prosecutions appear to be supported by statistics cited by Wikipedia.

Before providing an answer to his own question, writer and radio show host John Phillips asked, “When, and if, Kamala Harris decides to run for president of the United States, voters will undoubtedly ask themselves the question, ‘Do I want the whole country to look like San Francisco?’”

Since early this year, a myriad of mainstream reports have cited San Francisco’s growing sanitation crisis powered by homelessness and rampant drug use, with discarded hypodermic needles and tent cities a common sight in some areas.  Some have compared the situation there to that of a “third-world” country for various reasons.

An August 8, 2018 editorial cited the same statistics source at SFGate favoring Harris as a Democrat presidential contender.

Harris served as City and County of San Francisco District Attorney from 2003 to 2010, when she was elected California Attorney General.  She served one term, was re-elected in 2014, but in January 2015 announced her intention to seek the U.S. Senate to be vacated by the retiring Barbara Boxer.

Harris’s Wikipedia entry is arguably not particularly favorable to her.  Under the subheading, “2020 Presidential speculation,” it reads:

Kamala Harris has been considered a top contender for the 2020 Democratic nomination for President.[145][146] She has publicly stated that she is “not ruling it out”.[147] Her spending on Facebook advertising is unusually high, and targeted to reach voters outside California.[148][149]. In July 2018, it was announced that she would publish a memoir, another sign of a possible run.[150]

On November 11, 2016, The Huffington Post published an article titled, “Meet Kamala Harris, Who Could Become The First Woman President.”

As early as July of last year, a Democrat involved in fundraising reportedly said that Harris “is ‘absolutely’ running for president.”

In September 2017, Newsweek reported that “PredictIt, an online political stock market, now lists Harris as the most valuable of the possible 2020 Democratic nominees, higher even than Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, as well as than former Vice President Joe Biden.”

On August 9, 2018, Buzzfeed News reported that “California Sen. Kamala Harris is headlining a Martha’s Vineyard reception next week amid a swell of excitement here for her possible candidacy for president.”

On August 10, 2018, a letter to the editor in The Los Angeles Times opined that “Kamala Harris is a lot more qualified to be president than Donald Trump.”  The article did not raise the constitutional eligibility issue.

On Sunday, The Hill wrote that “A year and a half into her first term in office, the Judiciary Committee’s most junior member is already seen as a potential presidential front-runner.”

Former Obama eligibility litigant Commander Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret) recently posted an article arguing that Harris is not constitutionally qualified.  “Senator Harris is not being transparent on this issue and her office staff has refused to answer any questions on this subject,” Kerchner wrote. “Given Kamala Harris’s year of birth, and her parents emigration years, she was born in the USA to two foreign nationals and thus inherited their respective birth nation’s citizenship when she was born, in addition to being a basic Citizen by being born in the USA to aliens legally domiciled here. Thus Senator Kamala Harris was born with citizenship and required allegiance at birth to three countries. This is hardly what the founders and framers intended when they selected the “natural born Citizen” requirement for the person who would in the future be permitted to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military, once the founding generation was gone.”

Citing the Wikipedia entry and the five-year naturalization requirement, Wilmott told us, “Each of the parents has to be here five years to apply for citizenship. So if she was born in 1964 and the father came in 1961, adding five years to that, he could not have become an American citizen until 1966, at the earliest.  So I immediately wrote a letter to her, which you posted.”

Wilmott’s December 4, 2017 letter to Harris references questions surrounding Barack Obama’s eligibility given that no verifiable proof of his alleged birth in the U.S. exists and he claims a father who was never a U.S. citizen.  As the result of a five-year criminal investigation, the “long-form” birth certificate image posted at the White House website in 2011 bearing Obama’s name was declared a “computer-generated forgery” in March 2012.

Wilmott’s letter to Harris states, in part:

I couldn’t help but notice that the press has recently been extolling you as the next “Obama” and the inevitable frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. While this growing presidential buzz may be quite intoxicating for you, I suggest that you take a serious look at Article II of the U.S. Constitution, i.e., the presidential eligibility clause.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mandates that a president be a NATURAL-born citizen, which you clearly are not. At the time of your birth, BOTH of your parents were citizens of foreign countries, so your birth in California makes you at best a NATIVE-born citizen (anchor baby?) under the prevailing view of the 14th Amendment. Lest you think that I have Republican bias I would also point out that presidential wannabes Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio also fail to meet this higher standard of citizenship. Their campaigns were fraudulent and in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.

He reported that his letter received no response.

Early last month, Wilmott wrote Harris a second letter asking about her parents’ naturalization or absence thereof:

The letter concluded with, “I look forward to your prompt response.”

“I personally don’t think she is a viable candidate and will not run,” Wilmott told us, “but I do think she’s being looked at as a vice-presidential candidate, and she’s not eligible.”

The 12th Amendment states that the vice president must possess the same qualifications as the president.

Regarding political operatives’ consideration of constitutional requirements, Wilmott remarked, “At the end of the day, they don’t care about the Constitution; they care about their self-serving aspirations and being in the limelight. If Harris is paying attention, she knows the whole history and that the same situation could come up again.  The reason the ‘birther’ issue has never been put to rest is that we know we’re right and we have the Constitution on our side.”

Since 2008, anyone questioning Obama’s eligibility has been called a “birther” or a “racist.”  On Friday, the lead investigator of the “long-form” image posted at whitehouse.gov, Mike Zullo, announced that two intelligence-community professionals informed him that “it’s been an open secret” in Washington, DC that “Obama could never satisfy the constitutional requirement of being born on American soil.”

Of his July 2 letter, Wilmott said, “I sent it ‘snail mail’ to all six district offices and waited a month.  On the very day of the one-month anniversary, I got a letter in the mail, and it was absolutely a typical response from a politician, thanking me for writing about ‘the state of our nation.'”

“It says nothing about what I asked her,” Wilmott observed.

 

 

 

“It’s an absolute insult that these people feel they can fire off a form letter and completely ignore what was written to them,” he further said.  “So I picked up the phone and called her LA office and spoke with a man who was rather indignant when I told him I wanted to know if Senator Harris’s parents were ever U.S. citizens.  ‘Well, that’s private,’ he said, and I said, ‘Why is it private that I know whether or not her parents are citizen or not?  After all, if she’s being touted as a candidate for President of the United States, I know that she has to be a natural born Citizen, and for me, that means her parents must have been American citizens at the time of her birth.  Just because Obama got away with it doesn’t mean we have to sit on the sidelines and watch this continually go on.’  And he said, ‘Well, sir, Obama was born in the United states,’ and I said, ‘So what? That doesn’t make him a natural born Citizen.’ He said, ‘Sir, he was born in Hawaii,’ and I said, ‘That, sir, does not make him a natural born Citizen; perhaps a native-born citizen but not a natural born Citizen.’

“He kept cutting me off and I said, ‘I want to speak with your supervisor,’ and he said, ‘I’ll have him call you.’  I said ‘Yeah, right…’ and he said, ‘I’ll have him call you.'”

“I never heard from him,” Wilmott said.

“If the Wikipedia article is correct, I know that her parents had not been in the country long enough to have been U.S. citizens at the time of her birth,” he continued.  Further, he speculated that “if she runs, I think she’s going to play the ‘gender’ card and ‘race’ card, and I don’t think that does anybody any good.  Those have not worked out well for us.”


Editor’s Note:  This article originally misstated the 25th Amendment as requiring the vice president to possess the same qualifications at the president when it is, in fact, the 12th Amendment which contains that language.

 

59 Responses to "Is Kamala Harris Eligible to be President?"

  1. RICHARD WALTERS   Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 6:47 AM

    Its SO simple. SHOW US HARRIS’ DOCUMENTS OF CITIZENSHIP. Surely she has them if she is in the US senate.

    Reply
    1. Bud White   Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 11:55 AM

      California is an open records state. Anyone can obtain an informational copy (not certified) of Harris’ birth certificate.

      I believe there are images of it online.

      Reply
  2. RICHARD WALTERS   Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 6:40 AM

    Its SO simple. All we need to see is the DOCUMENTATION that she is a natural born citizen. SHOW US, PLEASE!

    Reply
  3. Lee Sherman   Thursday, August 13, 2020 at 9:27 AM

    Pelosi will step in and take that presidential job in a new york minute. Do not doubt it, bc it will happen. Kiss America goodbye.

    Reply
  4. Ichabod   Wednesday, August 12, 2020 at 11:55 AM

    No, she isn’t.The Constitutional requirement that the President of the United States be a “Natural Born Citizen” [Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5; U.S. Constitution] has never gotten so much attention until Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama ran for the Office.

    The waters have been muddied and the definition obscured by the MSM and Obama himself.
    The law that Obama fell under (the 1957 Naturalization and Immigration Act) has disappeared from all references or access.

    Then there is the “Naturalization Act of 1790” which states:
    “And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=226

    This is supposedly the only law that defines “Natural Born Citizen”, which is not entirely true. Let me explain.

    When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, it was written in PLAIN ENGLISH so as to make it completely understandable to the citizens of the newly formed country. Most citizens were either illiterate or read at “grade school” levels. The Founding Fathers wanted it written so that even these people could completely understand it.
    No “legalese” here, just plain old English.
    They would also use terms that were common to the day and laws that were also common of the day.
    International law at that time was mostly through Emmerich De Vattel’s “The Law of Nations or Principals of Natural Law”.
    It was what the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on, and mention it also within the Constitution itself:

    “The Congress shall have Power to…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies on the high Seas, and offences against the Law of Nations.” – Article 1, Section 8(a), Clause 10; U.S. Constitution

    The Law of Nations. Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations.
    http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm

    And what does the Law of Nations state about Natural Born Citizen?
    Was this in fact, what the Founding Fathers based their requirement that only a Natural Born Citizen could be President? Surely they had to know what they meant by it, as did the People.

    And what exactly does the Law of Nations say about the subject?

    Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.
    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, itwill be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” – Law of Nations; chapter XIX; paragraph 212.

    The Constitution also gives Congress the right to make laws concerning immigration and naturalization.
    The very fact that the Constitution states that only certain types of citizens could be President, it lies to reason that there are other types of citizenship. Naturalized, native, immigrant, duel, and Natural Born.

    8 USC § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth which states:

    Current through Pub. L. 113-31. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
    (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
    (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
    (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
    (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
    (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totalling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22* by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
    (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
    (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
    (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

    I emphasis paragraph c:
    (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
    Note that BOTH PARENTS MUST BE CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF BIRTH.

    Then comes paragraph g:
    (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totalling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person.
Note: This covers those who have one (1) parent who is a citizen and an foreign (alien) citizen. The REQUIREMENT FOR CITIZENSHIP is that  “..and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totalling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.”

    This is a requirement that in order for a child to be a citizen of the U.S. with a foreign national as one parent, that the U.S. citizen parent MUST BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT WITHIN THE U.S. and/or it’s territories for a period of five (5) years, which is permissible to be broken down into several “periods” and at least two (2) of which must be after attaining the age of 14.
    This however, does not grant Natural Born status on the child, but citizenship. There is a huge difference or the Founding Fathers would not have bothered to mention the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement for the Office of President.

    *[22 USC § 288 – “International organization” defined];

    For the purposes of this subchapter, the term “international organization” means a public international organization in which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under the authority of any Act of Congress authorizing such participation or making an appropriation for such participation, and which shall have been designated by the President through appropriate Executive order as being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided in this subchapter. The President shall be authorized, in the light of the functions performed by any such international organization, by appropriate Executive order to withhold or withdraw from any such organization or its officers or employees any of the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided for in this subchapter (including the amendments made by this subchapter) or to condition or limit the enjoyment by any such organization or its officers or employees of any such privilege, exemption, or immunity. The President shall be authorized, if in his judgment such action should be justified by reason of the abuse by an international organization or its officers and employees of the privileges, exemptions, and immunities provided in this subchapter or for any other reason, at any time to revoke the designation of any international organization under this section, whereupon the international organization in question shall cease to be classed as an international organization for the purposes of this subchapter.]

    The Supreme Court and “Natural Born Citizen”.

    There are four (4) Supreme Court rulings concerning citizenship. They are:

    The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814).
    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/12/253/case.html

    In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

    MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL.
    I entirely concur in so much of the opinion delivered in this case as attaches a hostile character to the property of an American citizen continuing, after the declaration of war, to reside and trade in the country of the enemy, and I subscribe implicitly to the reasoning urged in its support. But from so much of that opinion as subjects to confiscation the property of a citizen shipped before a knowledge of the war, and which disallows the defense founded on an intention to change his domicile and to return to the United States, manifested in a sufficient manner, and within a reasonable time after knowledge of the war, although it be subsequent to the capture, I feel myself compelled to dissent.
    The question is undoubtedly complex and intricate. It is difficult to draw a line of discrimination which shall be at the same time precise and equitable. But the difficulty does not appear to me to be sufficient to deter courts from making the attempt.
    A merchant residing abroad for commercial purposes may certainly intend to continue in the foreign country so long as peace shall exist, provided his commercial objects shall detain him so long, but to leave it the instant war shall break out between that country and his own. This intention it is not necessary to manifest during peace, and when war shall commence, the belligerent cruiser may find his property on the ocean and may capture it before he knows that war exists. The question whether this be enemy property or not depends, in my judgement, not exclusively on the residence of the owner at the time, but on his residence taken in connection with his national character as a citizen, and with his intention to continue or to discontinue his commercial domicile in the event of war.
    Page 12 U. S. 289
    The evidence of this intention will rarely, if ever, be given during peace. It must therefore be furnished, if at all, after the war shall be known to him, and that knowledge may be preceded by the capture of his goods. It appears to me, then, to be a case in which, as in many others, justice requires that subsequent testimony shall be received to prove a preexisting fact. Measures taken for removal immediately after a war may prove a previous intention to remove in the event of war, and may prove that the captured property, although prima facie belonging to an enemy, does in fact belong to a friend. In such case, the citizen, in my opinion, has a right, in the nature of the jus postliminii, to claim restitution.
    As this question is not only decisive of many claims now depending before this Court, but is also of vast importance to our merchants generally, I may be excused for stating at some length the reasons on which my opinion is founded.
    The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

    (Please pay special attention to the next few paragraphs. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court QUOTES Emmerich de Vattel and the Law of Nation, VERBATIM)

    Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
    “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants
    Page 12 U. S. 290
    them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages.”
    “The domicile is the habitation fixed in any place with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his domicile in any place unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not remove his domicile elsewhere. In this sense, he who stops, even for a long time, in a place for the management of his affairs has only a simple habitation there, but has no domicile.”

    There was no doubt by Chief Justice Marshall on what the Founding Fathers meant by “Natural Born Citizen”, as he KNEW them personally! The facts are clear. To be considered a “Natural Born Citizen” a person must be born to parents (PLURAL) who are BOTH U.S. citizens at the time of birth.

    Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/242/

    Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1830) (In this case, Minor, not Happersett, was the plaintiff)
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

    In his ruling, Supreme Court Chief Justice once again acknowledges “The Law of Nations” [Vattel]:

    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

    “The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
    On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States.  The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

    Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies.  In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.


    Reply
  5. Thomas Wilkins   Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 10:20 PM

    not qualified according to the article.

    Reply
  6. Glen   Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 3:18 PM

    I need to spend more time on the narrative and the comments. However, bringing President Trump in this discussion is traditional Leftist deflection. His citizenship is not in question and I have never seen it questioned before some of the above comments.
    There may have been errors in the past with the citizenship of a president. However, past errors do not me we need to allow the error to become the new standard. That would be allowing an error to amend the Constitution. Another traditional Leftist deflection.

    Reply
  7. Ed B   Sunday, June 30, 2019 at 7:22 PM

    If determing her eligibility is left to the DNC…forget it. It will depend on how strongly they feel her chances of winning are. Otherwise they’ll throw her under the bus. That said…some other faction had better get on this NOW! so we don’t have another Obama situation.

    Reply
  8. Randy Lindenberger   Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:55 PM

    She is as INELIGIBLE as obama was – INELIGIBLE, Neither one is a “Natural Born Citizen” This requires BOTH parents to be citizens and BORN on U.S. soil PERIOD!. Racism, the lying media and millions in fraudulent donations got the userper elected.
    I predict that in the last two years of the Trump administrations 8 years, the TRUTH about obama’s birth will be clearly displayed to all. This will void Sotomayor and Kegan appointments, giving two more conservatives to the Supreme Court.

    Reply
  9. David Farrar   Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 4:41 PM

    And another thing, while the English translation of the “Laws of the Nations” is correct, it is seldom read correctly.

    Take §212. Citizens and natives. The correct title is “Citizens and naturals.”

    Why, because that is how they punctuated the following seminal sentence: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    The author(s) put a comma after the word “natives”. This means the author(s) were not sure the term they used “natives,” sufficiently conveyed their true intent, so they placed a comma after “natives,” and went on to tell us what they actually meant by the word “natural born citizen”. It’s the difference between a defined clause and an undefined clause, grammatically speaking.

    Reply
  10. David Farrar   Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 4:19 PM

    Please, it’s time to move on. Think, why is it necessay for both parents to be U.S. citizens in order to be Art. II, § I, Cl. 5 natural born citizens? Exclusivity of allegiance at birth. It doesn’t get any more complicated than that. The only real question is, in a constitutional Republic, does the state bestow natural born citizenship on the child via the 14th Amendment, or do its parents’ (being sovereigns) transfer their pledge to support and abide by the U.S. Constitution to their offspring until the age of majority?

    Reply
  11. David Farrar   Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 4:00 PM

    As far as John McCain goes, it would all depend on whether or not he was issued a Panamian birth certificate at birth. If he was, he was not an nbC, which seems the case. If he wasn’t, he would be an nbC.

    Reply
  12. Robert Laity   Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 1:16 PM

    Tom Polhaus, Thomas Woodrow Wilson was born in 1856 to Joseph Wilson and Jesse Woodrow. Joe and Jesse were married in 1849. The “legal doctrine of coverture” [cited below by Gary M. Wilmott] made Jesse a US Citizen upon marrying Joseph Wilson, a US Citizen, seven years before T.W.Wilson was born IN the US. T.W.Wilson was an NBC.

    Reply
  13. Robert Laity   Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 12:55 PM

    Jigsaw John, George M. Dallas’ Mother Arabella Maria Smith was born in Devon, England and was the daughter of Major George Smith of the BRITISH Army. She was a Brit when she was married to George’s father Alexander Dallas. Alexander was born in Kingston, Jamaica. I doubt that George Dallas’s Mother Arabella subscribed to the cause of the American Revolution and the War of 1812 and therefore could NOT be a US Citizen given her loyalty to the Crown,as the daughter of a British Army Major. In any event, my research was a cursory review. One would have to delve further into specifics for more precise details. In any event the only two Usurper Presidents were Obama and Arthur. Both born with dual British US Citizenship. The fact that the US was fighting a war of independence FROM England made british subjects who were loyal to the crown, most unacceptable as OUR President or VP.

    Reply
  14. Tom Polhaus   Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 11:58 AM

    What about Woodrow Wilson?

    His mother, Jessie Janet Woodrow, was born in Carlisle, England. Any proof she naturalized before his birth?

    Reply
  15. Jigsaw John   Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 11:22 AM

    “George Dallas, VP to President Polk was not an NBC.”

    Why not? Born in Philadelphia in 1792, father was citizen (naturalized “six or seven” years before the Constitution was ratified. Mothers status unknown but wouldn’t she be a citizen from here marriage?

    Seems to meet your definition.

    Reply
  16. Robert Laity   Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 2:13 AM

    Jonathan David Mooers, The first 7 presidents and VPs were grandfathered in. Martin Van Buren was our first NBC President. George Dallas, VP to President Polk was not an NBC. Neither was Chester Arthur, VP to President Garfield. Arthur was a usurper “President”. Charles Curtis, VP to Herbert Hoover was born in the Kansas Territory to a US Citizen Father and a Native American Mother in 1860. Hubert Humphrey, VP to President Johnson was born in the US to a US Citizen Father and a Norwegian Mother (who may or not have been naturalized) at the time of Hubert’s birth. Spiro Agnew’s father was born in Greece. Spiro was born in 1918 and was VP to Richard Nixon. Walter Mondale, VP to Jimmy Carter was the son of a US Citizen Father and a Canadian Mother. VP Cheney is related to both Harry Truman and our second usurper “President” Barack Obama.

    Reply
  17. Glenn Harrison   Monday, February 4, 2019 at 10:31 PM

    A point or two to ponder.

    Both Demorats and Republican’ts supported / co-signed on voiding NBC.

    However, between 2009 and 2011 their were 13 State bills introduced in support to defend the noted federal attempts to trash NBC. The following states were: Arizona/HB2544, Connecticut/ SB391, Georgia/HB401, Indiana/SB114, Iowa/SB368, Maine/LD34/HP27 Missouri/HB283, Montana/HB205, Nebraska/LB654, New Hampshire/HB1245
    Oklahoma/SB91,384,540, Pennsylvania, 724.772.3, Tennessee, SB366, Texas, HB295/529,

    Reply
  18. Glenn Harrison   Monday, February 4, 2019 at 6:24 PM

    Two cents more. This was found on CONGRESS.GOV
    http://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/140

    H.R. Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017
    Sponsor: Rep. King, Steve [R-IA-4] (Introduced 01/03/2017)

    This bill amends the Immigration Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes in the person is born in the united States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien
    performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

    This Act shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of its enactment.

    I’m not fully sold on this one. CDR and others, indeed respond with input.

    Reply
  19. JONATHAN DAVID MOOERS   Monday, February 4, 2019 at 12:00 PM

    https://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/057_chron.html

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii

    https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/birthright-citizenship-and-dual-citizenship-harbingers-of-administrative-tyranny/

    I ask my fellow students enrolled in “The P&E Graduate School of NBC” (which opened its doors to open-minded humanity in 2009) two things related to all information contained just in this ponderous P&E/Harris article alone:

    1. What reasoning and discussions lead to the last mandate/sentence of The 12th Amendment, being, “…But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” ?

    2. Were all Vice-Presidents “grandfathered citizens” until, around 35 years after the United States officially became a new nation, all Vice-Presidents were natural born citizens? Were there ever any “usurper” constitutionally ineligible Vice-Presidents, similar to
    FAKE presIDent Soetoro-Obama II?

    I surmise, our immigration system is not broken, it is disobeyed by the US Government. Same with CITIZENSHIP BORDERS; and only private sector “P&E graduates”, along with President Trump, can enforce “natural born Citizen” as being, in its simplest foundational uncontestable form, BORN WITHIN U.S. JURISDICTION TO UNITED STATES CITIZEN- PARENTS [PEDIGREE] and PROVEN NON-CRIMINAL ALLEGIANCE TO USA [PHILOSOPHY].

    For example, SOS Hillary may have the necessary NBC pedigree, but she is a fugitive RICO career racketeer (Uranium One et al); Numbskull Pelosi is next after Pence to be President, but she, too, may have the NBC pedigree but is a pro-foreign operative with proven fake allegiance to the US Constitution; alamaK Harris appears to posses neither NBC pedigree nor NBC philosophy (from sanctuary San Francisco); Santa Clause Sanders may have NBC pedigree but appears to be a devout communist philosopher.

    Reply
  20. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Monday, February 4, 2019 at 10:38 AM

    This overall wordy summary is the opinion of a natural born U.S. Citizen, based upon what I have learned from many more knowledgable commenters than I, plus from informative websites. Feel free to correct any legal technical statements that I have stated. I thank the editor of this website for the opportunity to express my views. Hopefully, one day justice will be served on the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the Americans.

    Prelude: All of the U.S. Senate who were in session in 2008 conspired to influence the 2008 presidential election through an apparently innocuous bill known as Senate Resolution (SR) 511 by referencing a repealed immigration document from the year 1790 to legitimize an otherwise illegitimate John S. McCain, III for the office of the president of the United States and at the same time, used horse blinders to willfully obfuscate and overlook aka Barry HUSSEIN Obama’s own unconstitutional status as a presidential contender for the 2008 presidential election.
    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text

    Background: Before any person of any political party decides that they want to be a candidate for the president of the United States of America, they must have been born in the U.S.A. to two U.S. citizen parents, one female mother and one male father. Hence the term “natural born Citizen” as cited in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

    Previous attempts to modify the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requirement wording from “natural born Citizen’ to simply “born citizen” certainly met with resistance, obfuscation, and confusion. The UniParty realized this change to the U.S. Constitution was unattainable through the Amendment process so they distorted the meaning of natural born Citizen behind the scenes by tickling the electorate with a feather using the ‘technical’ term “natural born Citizen” found in the U.S.A.’s first naturalization law. The SR 511 process was kept low-profile, albeit low-key, and was designed to deceive the public. The actual votes rendered for SR 511 attained 99 Yea votes from the UniParty on this bill. Only U.S. Senator John McCain did not vote for it. His recusal helped with the ‘integrity’ deception.

    Details: On April 10, 2008, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D) MO, introduced a simple resolution that stated: “S.Res. 511 — 110th Congress: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.” A handful of other U.S. Senators joined-in on the resolution that same day. Those co-sponsors were: Hillary Clinton, [D-NY], Thomas Coburn [R-OK], Patrick Leahy [D-], Barack HUSSEIN Obama [D-IL], and Jim Webb [D-VA]. According to U.S. Senate protocol, SR 511 then went to the “Ordered Reported” status on April 24, 2008 that indicates that the committee has voted to issue a report to the full chamber recommending that the bill be considered further. Only about 1 in 4 bills are reported out of committee. Finally, on April 30, 2008, the SR 511 bill was advanced to the “Agreed To” status where SR 511 resolution was passed in a 99 Yea vote in the U.S. Senate.

    Audacity: It’s insulting to even fathom that the Democrat Party, in either chamber, would initiate any action item that would politically favor or financially benefit the opposition, as this resolution appeared to be on its face value. What it did do is create a phony bi-partisan endeavor by having select members on both side of the aisle show their support for it, both in the “Introduced” phase and then again in the final “Agreed To” phase with a near-unanimous 99 Yea vote. There had to be a reason why, all of a sudden, the Senate chamber became so cooperative on this issue. This is the UniParty in action.

    Further Thought: Corporate managers like to hire ‘results-oriented’ individuals. Well, the desired results of this SR 511 were achieved by the UniParty who underhandedly defined the meaning of a natural born citizen as any person who is born in the United States of America without regard to the citizenship of the person’s parents. That’s why they spent the time and energy to focus on McCain’s presidential eligibility – which he isn’t. By focusing on McCain, the implied eligibility was that anyone born in the United States is eligible for the office of the presidency. Otherwise, Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s own eligibility would have been scrutinized with a separate resolution. This behind-the-scenes unwritten definition was instilled into the documentation of the Congressional Research Service. That same “born in the U.S.A.” became a talking point boilerplate canned response for all of the Congressional Members who had to answer their constituents when questioned about Obama’s presidential eligibility.

    SR 511 text obfuscation: SR 511 stated in-part: “Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the natural born Citizen clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute (stop right there on “statute” and let that sink in) defining the term natural born Citizen;” Moving along – This writer believes that SR 511 did not focus on the two parent factor, but rather focused on the born overseas factor. There’s no doubt in my military mind that the SR 511 text was alluding to the first Naturalization Act (1790) whereby it stated that: [Excerpt] “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:…so-on and so-forth…”

    Obfuscation by Omission: One hundred U.S. Senators pulled the wool over the eyes of the electorate in 2008. Among other things, they did not consider telling the electorate that the first Naturalization Act (1790) was effectively nullified by the following corrective text found in the follow-on Naturalization Act (1795) that repealed the 1790 Act. The Naturalization Act (1795) now stated: “….and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:….” Naturalization Act (1795) further stated: “SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.”

    It’s the Law: John S. McCain’s parents were required by law to document and to declare John III a U.S. citizen upon his first entry into continental U.S. If it takes a law to declare someone a U.S. citizen, they are not a natural born (U.S.) Citizen. My nephew, born in England to two U.S. citizen parents (husband USAF enlisted), also needed immigration documentation to declare U.S. citizenship for their son.

    Congress cannot make any person a natural born (U.S.) Citizen; that is why SR 511 was a sham. Actually, Congress made John McCain a statutory U.S. citizen by enacting a law that states that certain persons born outside the limits of the U.S.A. are indeed, U.S. citizens, but not a natural born Citizen. See 8 U.S. Code § 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904 at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403

    Summary: People are natural born (U.S.) Citizens by the act of nature (born in the U.S.A. to two U.S. citizen parents), otherwise known as natural law. Congress can only grant statutory (positive laws) U.S. citizenship. Repeated: Only those persons born in the U.S.A. to two U.S. citizen parents are natural born (U.S.) Citizens; all others that do not meet the natural born (U.S.) Citizen specification are statutory citizens and are only eligible for the U.S. Congress or for the U.S. Supreme Court. The authors and signers of SR 511 positively deceived through criminal trickery.

    Immigration laws are made to proclaim and lawfully make a person a U.S. citizen through positive law. No immigration law can make anyone a natural born Citizen. A natural born Citizen is a U.S. citizen through no laws enacted by Congress. A natural born Citizen is a U.S. Citizen by the law of nature – born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. No positive law can do that. It is my opinion that everyone that voted for either McCain or Obama in the 2008 election and again Obama in 2012, voted for an ineligible presidential candidate.

    Reply
  21. James Carter   Monday, February 4, 2019 at 8:53 AM

    Glen Harrison,

    Re that list, I compiled that list from a couple sources after doing a search for “congressional attempts to change natural born citizen”. The actual homework was done by others, and I apologize for not giving credit to whom credit is do.

    Reply
  22. Glenn Harrison   Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 8:46 PM

    Thanks to all who responded. James Carter, thanks for your homework and sharing the number
    of times Congress attempted to alter Natural Born Citizen. I hope the Post & Email will keep this posted for an extended period of time.

    I ask others to take note of the attempts of Congress to alter NBC and for citizens to contact their Congressmen and Senators on this matter and the link of Obama being an Usurper.

    Reply
  23. James Carter   Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 10:06 AM

    If, IF, “natural born citizen” does not mean born in the U.S. to parents each of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time there would have been no need for the following attempts by members of Congress to change it or remove it from the presidential eligibility clause altogether. None of these proposals even made it out of committee:

    January 14, 1975, Rep. Jonathan Bingham [D-NY]: HJR 33 – Constitutional Amendment providing that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.

    January 4, 1977, Rep. Jonathan Bingham [D-NY]: HJR 38 – Constitutional Amendment permitting an otherwise eligible citizen of the United States to hold the office of President even if such individual is not a natural born citizen.

    June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder [D-Ark] : HJR 59 – Constitutional Amendment to permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice-president.

    Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]: HJR67 – Constitutional Amendment which would have done the same as Snyder’s, only the requirement to be a citizen was lowered to 20 years.

    Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles [R-OK]: SB 2128 – Natural Born Citizen Act defined natural born citizen as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States.

    Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]: HJR 104 – Constitutional Amendment to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.

    Jan. 4, 2005, Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]: HJR2 – The same as Rohrabacher’s.

    Feb. 1, 2005, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]: HJR15 – Constitutional Amendment to require only 20 years citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.

    April 14, 2005, Rep. Vic Snyder [D-AZ]: HJR42 – Constitutional Amendment making a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.

    Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire Catskill [D-MO]: SB 2678 – Amendment thereto clarifying that natural-born citizen includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.

    Reply
  24. Robert Laity   Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 4:06 AM

    Eric Otto, The term of art “Natural Born Citizen” has been defined, affirmed and reaffirmed over (6) times by the US Supreme Court. A Natural Born [U.S.] Citizen is “One born IN the United States to parents who are BOTH U.S. Citizens themselves”. NO exceptions.

    Reply
  25. ObligedFriend   Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 9:36 PM

    Harris has Jamaican citizenship by Descent.

    http://www.pica.gov.jm/citizenship/category-of-citizenship/citizenship-by-descent/

    Reply
  26. Neil   Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 3:49 PM

    Well it’s interesting that some guy has a brand new definition of “natural born citizen” but the real, accepted definition is…………..BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. There is NO nonsense about being born in the US to two parents that are also citizens of the US.

    Reply
  27. margaret smith   Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 4:28 PM

    How is this happening in America!!!????????????? Why are these people not vetted, Espically to be President!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
  28. Eric Otto   Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 6:25 AM

    From Black Law Dictionary online: What is NATURAL-BORN?

    “the term applying to the person who is born in the country where they are a citizen.”

    Reply
  29. 12thGenerationAmerican   Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM

    Kamala is an Anchor Baby!

    Reply
  30. Seamus   Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 1:27 PM

    Barack Hussein Obama ruined the fabrc of the United States, by design, with his fundamental transformation. He used race as the jihadi weapon to do it and everyone who is a shade ligher than Kamala Harris is considered a racist until proven otherwise. We hear accusations of racism a hundred times a day. I’m convinced that Obama still tells the MSM to continue the racist drumbeat, and find it behind evey rock, sideways glance, greeting, or Wall.
    If you want a continuation of Obama, then Harris is your ticket. She was bred on “justice.” And carries the same disdain for the United states as Obama, and, and as demonstrated time and again during public hearings, she is is the epiotmy of arrogant Rude, loud, like a pitbull. I don’t care is she was born on the WH steps. She is unfit to be president of THIS nation. Perhaps she should try Canada or Jamaica.

    Reply
  31. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 24, 2018 at 1:52 AM

    Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to be President. She is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen”. Her Mother was an Indian Citizen when Kamala was born. Her Father, a Jamaican citizen. It is happening again. Constitutionally barred IMPOSTERS are encroaching on OUR Presidency.

    Reply
  32. Richard   Friday, September 7, 2018 at 4:51 PM

    Kamala and Obama can be what ever they want because the Constitution means nothing – it has no standing for us to rely on. The constitution is a dormant doc due to the 1783 Treaty of Peace. Remember, on paper the English won the Revolutionary War and were awarded the spoils of war so the King could pay for his he King’s business venture supported by his English Esquires, and Mason implants known as Ben Franklin, John Jay and Thomas Jefferson. Yes, traitors not hero’s. Come on guys know your American history. How many more crimes do we have to identify past the 1783 Treaty of Peace which actually made all government crimes allowable till this day. That Treaty did not recognize the people as sovereigns, it took away the rights of people to govern themselves, they couldn’t manage their money because King George was made Arch Treasurer of the united States of America. No more God’s Law and Natural Law they got the English Maritime Law and now we called it the BAR. And maybe of real importance is no more Allodial Land Title allowed as real property ownership system where the real property is owned free and clear of any superior landlord. We the People get to pay rent in the form of taxes and fees.
    No recognized sovereignty you are a citizen debt slave and without any real standing but to receive what the government gives you and can take away.
    Remedy is to make null and void the Treaty and rewrite it in our favor so we are never to be used as cannon fodder again. Until then SOS differant day.

    Reply
  33. Gary M Wilmott   Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 11:47 PM

    Actually under the legal doctrine of coverture which was commonplace at the time of the drafting of the Constitution and actually persisted into the 20th century, the FATHER’S citizenship was paramount. A foreign citizen wife’s citizenship was subsumed at marriage by the American citizen husband. The married couple were essentially one person in law and both American citizens. A child born to married progenitors (I know it’s a big word) of the aforementioned circumstances would thus be considered a Natural Born Citizen.

    Reply
  34. Jeffrey R Hardin   Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 9:43 PM

    Kamala Devi Harris is Naturalized….Not Natural Born
    Rafael Edward Cruz is Naturalized….Not Natural Born
    Marco Antonia Rubio is Naturalized….Not Natural Born
    Piyush Bobby Jindal…is Naturalized….Not Natural Born
    John Sidney McCain III is Naturalized….Not Natural Born
    Barack Hussein Obama is Naturalized….Not Natural Born
    Nimrata Randhawa Haley is Naturalized….Not Natural Born

    If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law or statute “(naturalization for example)”, they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen.

    NOT ALL Citizens @Birth are Natural Born…
    All Natural Born Citizens are Citizens @Birth….

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of [parents] who are [citizens].” – Law of Nations

    Reply
  35. SandyT   Saturday, August 25, 2018 at 9:29 PM

    Kamala Harris is NOT a natural born citizen. Her birth in Oakland, CA to non-citizen parents made her ONLY a citizen, not a natural born citizen. Birth on U.S. soil + citizen father + citizen mother = natural born citizen, period! She is not constitutionally eligible for the presidency or vice-presidency!

    Reply
  36. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 10:37 PM

    It’s a crying shame that common, non-elite U.S. citizens are the ones that must be pro-active to vet and to bring to the attention of the mass electorate potential candidates for the Executive Branch of this Constitutional Republic. Critical Article I and Article II government positions should dictate critical vetting, including the following at a minimum:

    1. A background investigation using Standard Form (SF) 86 covering their entire lifespan and the results of this SF86 document should be made public to all constituents one year prior to election.
    2. A lie detector test should be a mandatory requirement before being added to the ballot.
    3. The SF86 results should be used by an independent civilian organization to assess suitability for a minimum Top Secret classified clearance. If a person is rejected for this Top Secret classified clearance, they also should be rejected for the ballot.

    Here’s a little help and a reminder for a certain previous commenter (hint: it’s not G.M.W.) from Emmerich De Vattel on how to determine who may be a natural born (U.S.) citizen as directed by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as formed by our Founding Fathers who were highly influenced by De Vattel’s teachings.

    § 212. Citizens and natives.
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    See https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ for additional information on The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758).

    Parting shot: Article I candidates do not need to be a natural born (U.S.) citizen, but must otherwise be a U.S. citizen – plain vanilla, if-you-will as dictated by positive law.

    Reply
  37. Lew Harper   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 6:00 PM

    The People’s say is limited on the Federal level to electing officials who select judges that reflect the People’s philosophy. At the state level, the People have the ability to directly vote for judges who reflect the People’s philosophy. For example in San Diego, Gary Keep was elected as a judge. Kreep worked with Orly Taitz in some of the earliest eligibility lawsuits. Unfortunately his judicial career has not progressed as many might have hoped.

    Reply
  38. Gary M Wilmott   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 5:32 PM

    MC Duff you’re dreaming if you think the courts and the deep state government give a darn about the people and law and order. The evidence that substantiates my premise is out there for all to see.

    Reply
  39. M.C. Duff   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 1:04 PM

    The courts issue rulings, which are legally binding on the people. If the people think the courts got one wrong, the people (via their representatives or ballot initiatives) can change the law (or amend the constitution), as permitted. The people (again through their representatives or the ballot box) also can remove errant judges via impeachment, recall, not re-electing them, or other procedures as permitted by law.

    Civil disobedience also is an option for the people. But those who ignore judicial rulings that they don’t agree with should expect the government to punish that disobedience.

    Reply
  40. Lew Harper   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 12:17 PM

    Who actually decides what is a Supreme Court precedent?

    Who decides how to interpret a Supreme Court opinion?

    Isn’t it the lower courts? Litigants make an argument that this Supreme Court opinion or that opinion supports their position and the courts (the trier of law) determines which of them is right.

    Several courts have ruled that Wong Kim Ark is the binding precedent and several have specifically said that Minor v. Happersett is not.

    So until the Supreme Court steps in and rules the lower courts are wrong, the case law supports Senators Harris, Rubio, Governor Jindal and Ambassador Haley.

    Reply
    1. Sharon Rondeau   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 12:34 PM

      Who has the final say: the courts or the people?

      Reply
  41. M.C. Duff   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 11:17 AM

    A greater court can overrule a lower court’s ruling, but until that actually happens, the lower court’s ruling is the law. Which is exactly what happened with Ankeny.

    Ankeny is the law only in Indiana. But no judge or legal scholar ever has said that Ankeny got it wrong, or that Minor requires two citizen patents.

    Reply
  42. James Carter   Friday, August 24, 2018 at 7:39 AM

    As if the Supreme Court has to specifically rule that one it’s cases trumps a lower court’s case, or that a lower court somehow got it wrong. Lower court judges can reject a Supreme Court ruling until the sun doesn’t shine but their opinion doesn’t trump that Supreme Court ruling.

    Reply
  43. M.C. Duff   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 11:17 PM

    The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that Minor “trumps” Ankeny, or that Ankeny somehow got it wrong. And judges have rejected the argument that Minor requires two citizen parents.

    Reply
  44. James Carter   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 7:56 PM

    Malachy Doyle wrote:
    The Ankeny opinion was a published opinion by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The Indiana Supreme Court unanimously refused to hear the appeal.

    Under Indiana rules that makes Ankeny binding on all Indiana state courts. So in Indiana the legal definition of a natural born citizen is based on the Ankeny decision.”

    Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution the Supreme Court trumps all lower courts. That means Minor vs Happersett, for just one, trumps Ankenny

    Reply
  45. Lew Harper   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 7:33 PM

    Why is there no raised seal?

    Why are the typed entries all pixelated?

    Look at box 12 Birthplace of the Father – NYC is pixelated almost as if it came from a different document that was at a different resoltion than the black background.

    Could this document be used to obtain a passport?

    Reply
    1. Sharon Rondeau   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 11:04 PM

      Look into it and report here what you find.

      Reply
  46. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:33 PM

    For the WHY the “natural born Citizen” clause, a national security clause, was added to the U.S. Constitution for the eligibility requirements for the singular most power office in our federal government, President and Commander-in-Chief of our military, and its original intent, meaning, and understanding to those who put it in there see this White Paper: https://www.scribd.com/doc/300919680/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-the-natural-born-Citizen-Term-in-Our-U-S-Constitution Unfortunately the courts are for the most part controlled by the two major political parties on this subject with each of the two parties having their favored non-natural born Citizen candidates and thus far this has not been permitted to get to the U.S. Supreme Court due to lower court technicality rulings such as “standing” and/or by the U.S. Supreme Court dodging cases which did petition them.

    Reply
  47. M.C. Duff   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 2:18 PM

    Ankeny wasn’t a SCOTUS case, but many judges cited it when concluding that Obama was a natural-born citizen. No judge or legal scholar has ever said that Ankeny was wrongly decided.

    Reply
  48. Lew Harper   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 2:00 PM

    Also too, for completeness, when Trump obtained his birth certificate from New York, it was a short form with no hospital or doctor listed, no signature of his mother, no raised seal and marked void.

    https://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/trump-birth-certificate.jpg

    Reply
    1. Sharon Rondeau   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 5:44 PM

      Is this a short-form? http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/TrumpCertificate.pdf

      Reply
  49. Gary M Wilmott   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 11:41 AM

    Tron that would mean that Anwar Al-Awaki, born in New Mexico to Yemeni citizen parents was eligible to run for POTUS. Ridiculous on its face.

    Reply
  50. Malachy Doyle   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 11:32 AM

    The Ankeny opinion was a published opinion by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The Indiana Supreme Court unanimously refused to hear the appeal.

    Under Indiana rules that makes Ankeny binding on all Indiana state courts. So in Indiana the legal definition of a natural born citizen is based on the Ankeny decision.

    So all anyone needs to do is get a different state court to rule that a natural born citizen requires two citizen parents and the case will have to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Simple

    Reply
  51. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 3:34 AM

    The Ankeny case, a state court case and not a U.S. Supreme Court decision, incorrectly stated what the 1898 Wong Kim Ark U.S. Supreme Court case decided/held. The WKA case held that Wong Kim Ark (who was born in the USA to non-Citizen parents who were legally domiciled in the USA) was a Citizen. It did not decide that he was a “natural born Citizen”. See the discussion about the Ankeny case in IN and the 1898 WKA Supreme Court case at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/search?q=Ankeny Also see: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14th-amendment-nor-wong-kim-ark.html The U.S. Supreme Court ducked all the cases regarding hearing if Obama was a “natural born Citizen”. Justice Thomas stated that in a Congressional hearing. See this article for more on that: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/search?q=Justice+Thomas

    Reply
  52. Tron   Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 9:01 PM

    YEP, SHE’S ELIGIBLE ALRIGHT..

    This is the ruling that U.S. courts defer to when ruling on NBC.

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidanceprovided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of theUnited States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

    SEE Ankeny v. Gov of Indiana

    Reply
  53. James Carter   Monday, August 20, 2018 at 8:01 AM

    Kamala D. Harris

    Dear Kamala,

    I would like to infom you that, contrary to your opinion, every American DOES NOT have a constitutionally-guaranteed right to (free) education, public safety and healthcare.

    I would also like to inform you that, once again contrary to your opinion, every American DOES have a Constitutional INALIENABLE right to keep and bear arms.

    Thank you for your opinions. If you have any doubts as to which of our opinions is correct please do not hesitate to take me to the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Cordially,
    The U.S. Constitution

    Reply
  54. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Sunday, August 19, 2018 at 10:47 PM

    Kamala Harris not a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards. She is missing two legs. See: https://www.scribd.com/document/385966818/Kamala-Harris-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-of-USA-to-Constitutional-Standards

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.