Spread the love


by Joseph DeMaio, ©2019

(Jun. 25, 2019) — One of the Democrat wanna-be candidates yearning for the opportunity to get bludgeoned by President Trump in the 2020 general election is Sen. Kamala Harris.  You will recall from her classless performance in the now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, she believes that the mere allegation of a crime – and particularly a sexual assault crime – is sufficient to warrant a conclusion of guilt in the alleged perpetrator.

Due process and the presumption of innocence – let alone actual proof or competent evidence of the actual commission of a crime – are principles of law which are foreign to Democrats in general, and seemingly altogether alien to Ms. Harris in particular.  Interesting trait in a lawyer…, no?

These circumstances make it all the more ironic and hypocritical – par for the course with Democrats, of course – that Harris, a former San Francisco District Attorney and California Attorney General, would now claim that, because of her “prosecutorial” experience, she is the best situated candidate among the Democrat field to “go after Trump” once she is elected to the presidency.  She has even analogized her zeal to pursue President Trump with a reference to a “rap” sheet concocted against the president.

But here’s the juicy part: she recently promised a crowd of supporters in South Carolina that she would “prosecute the case against Trump on the debate stage” prior to the election, if she were the Democrats’ nominee.  Please…, please…, D’s…, nominate her and put her on stage next to Trump.  Your faithful servant would pay a big-time sum for tickets to be in that same room when the questions begin flying.

One of the first questions that Trump should pose to Harris (regardless of whether it is ‘on topic’ as dictated by the moderators) is this: “Are you eligible under the Constitution as a ‘natural born Citizen?’”  Her answer would likely be: “Seriously?  You’re going to the ‘birther’ nonsense again?  Of course I’m eligible.  I was born in Oakland, California.”  Trump (or whoever the moderators might be) should follow up: “But when you were born, were your parents already U.S. citizens?”  Her likely response: “That doesn’t matter.  I have it on good authority that anyone born here, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, is a natural born Citizen.”  Trump should then grin and say: “Prove it.”

P&E readers, you see where this is going, right?  As your faithful servant has attempted to explain over the years, it was the demonstrable intent of the Founders, for anyone willing to see, to absolutely restrict eligibility to the office of the “Chief Magistrate” – the President – to a “natural born Citizen,” and only to someone who met the criteria for same.  That restriction, adopted by the Founders in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, was taken from § 212 of The Law of Nations, the seminal work of one Emmerich de Vattel, a 17th Century jurist and philosopher.  In order to be a “natural born citizen,” as opposed to a “native born citizen” or a “naturalized citizen,” both of one’s parents must be, at the moment of the person’s birth, citizens of the country where the birth occurs.

DeVattel’s work, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, was continually in the hands of the Founders as they labored over the drafting of the Constitution and was the work “most widely cited in the 50 years after the [American] Revolution.”  See United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 452, 462, n.12 (1977).

As it turns out, Kamala Harris was born to a Tamil Indian mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, and a Jamaican father, Donald Harris. Given that one Barack Hussein Obama II continues to refuse to remove the dark cloud of constitutional ineligibility still hanging over his usurpation of the presidency, Ms. Harris might expect similar problems.

Bear in mind, Monsieur Obama’s “original Hawaiian birth certificate,” thought by many to be (and likely in reality) a computerized forgery, listed his father as being a citizen of Kenya, not the United States.  Thus, even if the .pdf image of a document posted to the Internet which he claims is his “real deal” birth certificate were treated as “authentic,” he would still have been ineligible.  The fact that his mother (some would even question that “fact”) was a U.S. citizen in 1961 is irrelevant: because his father was never a U.S. citizen, he was, as we say “from the get-go,” ineligible to hold the office of the president.  The fact that he occupied the office illegitimately merely recognizes that he “got away with it.”  So far…, that is.

Returning to the eligibility of Ms. Harris, because the available public records fail to confirm that both her mother and her father were, on October 20, 1964, naturalized U.S. citizens, her eligibility remains very much in doubt.  The several deeply flawed and deceitfully structured Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) Memos and Reports from 2009, 2011 and 2016, seeking to prop up the purported (but false) legitimacy of Monsieur Obama as a natural born Citizen, will not help her.  Memo to P&E readers: as noted here, the 2009 CRS “What to Tell your Constituents… Memorandum” has been scrubbed from the Scribd.com website and is no longer accessible there, but you can learn about what it said here, here and here.

Nor will the Harvard Law Review Journal’s “On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen” magazine article by distinguished law professors and practitioners Mr. Paul Clement and Prof. Neal Katyal be of any assistance to her.  As explained here, the Clement/Katyal commentary suffers from the same misinterpretations of the Founders’ intent as do the CRS documents, but without the deceptive alterations of language committed by personnel in “the repository of the Nation’s best thinking.”

Long story short: unless Ms. Harris can prove that her parents were already naturalized U.S. citizens when she was born in Oakland back in 1964, her claim of constitutional eligibility is as flawed as that of Barack Hussein Obama II.  Who knows, maybe as the Democrats’ 2019 Circular Firing Squad Extravaganza (aka, the Democrat Primary Debates) gets under way, these questions will be posed by one or more of Ms. Harris’s Democrat rivals instead of President Trump.  Think of it: how great would it be to watch Elizabeth (“Pocahontas”) Warren delve into Ms. Harris’s constitutional eligibility?  Wow… time to buy some popcorn and soda pop… this could get really entertaining.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

  1. Your simply spreading falsehoods. 14th Amendment, look it up. A natural born citizen is either :

    A) BORN within the US or territories

    OR B) Born to a US Citizen.

    Anything else is just nonsense.

    1. You are the one who is simply spreading falsehoods. 14th Amendment, read it. It does not say anything about who is a “natural born citizen”, only who is a “citizen”:

      “All person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

      Got anything else?

  2. Joe Biden picks Kamala Harris for VP knowing she was an Anchor baby because both of her parents were Foreign Nationals at the time of Kamala’s Birth . Advice to VP Pence ask Kamala Harris if she is a Natural Born US Citizen and if her mother and father were US Citizens Oct 20, 1964 when she was born .

    1. The interesting part of this is that by the article, Quite a number of the country’s first POTUS were ILLEGALLY and UNCONSTIUTUTIONALLY in the office.

  3. The SCOTUS made it very clear in Minor v Happersett that a natural born citizen has to be born to two American citizens.
    The question is whether Kamala Harris’ parents were both American citizens at the time of her birth, and that should be easy to be determined.
    Fortunately, unless she is picked up as a VP candidate, the question is mot.

  4. Debate on what an NBC is is not necessary. The US Supreme court has settled that question. “One born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves”- Minor v Happersett, (Unanimous) (1874).

  5. Kamala Harris has lied about presidential constitutional eligibility and also her early life narrative, just like Obama did. Like Obama she spent much of her early life and formative years not living in the USA. Here is another recent example of her lying about her early life narrative: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/06/she-lied-kamala-harris-says-she-was-in-second-integrated-class-in-berkeley-but-yearbok-pictures-prove-shes-lying/ #KamalaHarris #DonaldTrump #MelaniaTrump #POTUS

  6. Kamala Harris is definitely not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutional standards. More information found here:

    Re: Kamala: https://www.scribd.com/lists/22182725/Some-Politicians-Seeking-High-Office-Who-Are-Not-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-of-U-S

    Re: Vattel’s influence on the founders and framers: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3224507/Vattel-s-Influence-on-U-S-Founders-Constitution-s-Framers

    Re: Papers discussing “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3301209/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Citizen-Meaning-to-Constitutional-Standards

    Re: Article II Super PAC page about how Congress has tried to subvert the true meaning and intent and founders and framers understanding of who is a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards. All attempts by both parties in Congress failed so the political parties in 2008 just decided to ignore the true meaning of the “natural born Citizen” and wage a disinformation campaign with their willing accomplices in the major main stream media, accomplices of both parties: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

    The fix was in by all the major political parties in the 2008 election to ignore the true meaning, intent, and understanding of the “natural born Citizen” term in our U.S. Constitution: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/i-believe-the-fix-was-in-for-the-2008-election-and-the-cover-up-is-still-going-strong-the-perfect-storm-for-a-constitutional-crisis/

    More from my collections: https://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists

  7. Sharon: Yes, maybe so. Seems to be spreading subtle disinformation and conflation of terms. Possibly a gas-lighter: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/gas-lighting/ Logically all “natural born Citizens” are “native born Citizens” but not all “native born Citizens” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/ The far left continually tries to conflate terms as being identical when they are not. Vattel was very clear what he meant when he used the term “natives” and “natural born Citizen” in his section 212. He clearly defined it in the same sentence. He did not use the term “native born”. And “native born” is not in our constitution. And as the other comment pointed out, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Minor vs Happersett what a “natural born Citizen” clearly is, exactly what Vattel said. For more relevant U.S. Supreme Court decisions see: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

    A “natural born Citizen’ born in the country to parents who are both Citizens of the country when the child is born is a person born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth. That minimizes chances of foreign influences on the child by birth circumstances which is exactly what John Jay had in mind when he suggested the term “natural born Citizen” to George Washington in his 1787 letter.

    I don’t know who “rooster Nash” really is but imo he (or she if in masking mode) seems bent on spreading disinformation and conflations of terms.

  8. Hamilton Nash posted: “Natural born and native born meant the same thing to the Founders.”

    Native born = simply born on U.S. soil = born to British subjects unknown to each other who met in the U.S. and had an affair and a baby while here.


  9. Hamilton Nash, In addition to what CDR Kerchner said, the U.S. Supreme Court cemented the definition of Natural Born Citizen for posterity. In a UNANIMOUS (9-0) decision they found that a natural born [U.S.] citizen is one born IN the United States to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens themselves. See: Minor v Happersett, USSCt. (1874).

  10. Two observations: 1. No democratic rival is going to challenge Harris’ constitutional eligibility to be POTUS…that’s wishful thinking; and 2. Harris is absolutely not a Natural Born Citizen as neither parent had been in the United States the requisite 5 years to be naturalized American citizens when she was born in 1964. Kamala Harris is a fraud and a political opportunist who has no respect for the Constitution, just like the person who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama, and republican “presidential wannabe’s”, Rafael Cruz and Marco Rubio.

  11. Huhhhh

    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,)” St. George Tucker

    St. George Tucker was a Revolutionary War hero, wounded at the Battle of Yorktown, lawyer, professor of law at William and Mary.

  12. Hamilton Nash: You said “Natural born and native born meant the same thing to the Founders.” That is not correct. The founders and framers considered the terms “natives” and “natural born Citizens” to be same thing. The term “natives” and “native born” are not identically the same thing. The treatise on Natural Law by Emer de Vattel was a key source of guidance and information for the founders and framers in creating our Constitutional Republic. Benjamin Franklin told us that. See Vattel’s writings about “natives” and “natural born citizen” in Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ Vattel did not use the term “native born”. We in this debate should not conflate the term natives and native born as it will cause confusion and play into the hands of the misinformation far-left progressive movement crowd which wants to change the meaning of words and terms in our constitution. Just like the media and far left routinely conflates the term “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” in their online and media debates re the constitutional eligibility of people like Obama, Cruz, Kamala Harris, and others: https://www.scribd.com/lists/22182725/Some-Politicians-Seeking-High-Office-Who-Are-Not-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-of-U-S We cannot let the far left conflate the terms “natives” and “native born”. We cannot let far left keep getting away with manipulating language and conflating terms. They must be corrected whenever they try to do it, if possible. The writings of Vattel are very clear. And his treatise was widely read and used by the Founders and Framers. That is what should be quoted when mentioning what the founders and framers understood as to the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” or “natives”, which Vattel very clearly and explicitly defined right after he used those terms in section 212. He defined what he meant in the same sentence. All engaged in the “natural born Citizen” debate here and elsewhere should carefully read that section 212 again: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/

  13. Here’s something to crow-about. Persistency counts.

    I am an infrequent visitor and commenter to the Conservative TreeHouse (CTH) website. https://theconservativetreehouse.com

    The CTH website is dedicated to the conservatism of the late Andrew Breitbart with a concentrated effort on positive reporting of the Trump candidacy and his presidency. Therefore, this website has been the eyes and ears of the positive attributes of the Trump presidency and for those seeking justice for the wrongs done to candidate Donald Trump, then President Trump, and his associates, past, present, and future by the Deep State.

    As conservative as the CTH is, their moderators, over the last 800 or more days, have been effectively flushing any and all of my comments about Obama’s illegal presidency down the sewer. Well, something has changed and yesterday I managed to somehow find the chink in the armour (armor) of the moderators at CTH.

    Check out the following article from CTH: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/06/25/jay-sekulow-discovers-new-documents-to-backstop-obamas-operation-against-trump-connects-to-evelyn-farkas/comment-page-1/?unapproved=7139176&moderation-hash=4add5019886b95f9da10f1d4771d0dde#comment-7139176

    My comments were added using the commenter alias of: Bruce_Dern’s_Finger

  14. “Obama’s “original Hawaiian birth certificate,” thought by many to be (and likely in reality) a computerized forgery, listed his father as being a citizen of Kenya, not the United States.”

    The birth certificate doesn’t say anything about his father’s citizenship. Only his place of birth. You have to look elsewhere for citizenship information.

    “As senior rooster ’round here, it’s my duty, and my pleasure, to instruct junior roosters in the ancient art of roostery”

    1. Response from Joseph DeMaio:

      “Rooster” Nash is correct that the BHO “birth certificate” does not declare, in so many English words, that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a “citizen of Kenya.” However, in declaring that he was born in Kenya – thus by operation of British law becoming from that day forward a natural born subject of the British crown until renounced (and there is no evidence of that) – a prima facie case is established that he was presumptively not a U.S. citizen but was instead, a Kenyan national. In the absence of any competent evidence or proof that he was a U.S. citizen, either exclusively or in a dual capacity, there should be little debate that on August 4, 1961, he was not a U.S. citizen.

      As for anecdotal, unofficial references to his non-U.S. citizenship status found “elsewhere,” see, e.g., https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/barack-obama-sr–43659.php, noting that his “Nationality” was “Kenyan” and that he “[b]ecame the first African foreign student at the University of Hawaii at Manoa in Honolulu in 1959.” (Emphasis added).

      Thus, unless he became a naturalized U.S. citizen between 1959 and August 4, 1961 and that circumstance can be proven by competent (i.e., non-fraudulent) evidence, he was not a U.S. citizen when Barack Hussein Obama II was born, all of which can be inferentially deduced from the .pdf image of Barack Hussein Obama II’s purported “birth certificate.” Side out, Rooster Nash.

  15. “In order to be a “natural born citizen,” as opposed to a “native born citizen” or a “naturalized citizen,” both of one’s parents must be, at the moment of the person’s birth, citizens of the country where the birth occurs.”

    Natural born and native born meant the same thing to the Founders.