Reader Asks Townhall.com Author Why Harris’s Eligibility Cannot be Explored

“WHY IS THERE SUCH RESISTANCE…?”

by Anonymous

(Aug. 29, 2020) — [Editor’s Note:  On Saturday a reader sent the following to Townhall.com author Beth Baumann in response to her article contending that CNN is “coming to Kamala’s defense,” referring to vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

CNN claimed in the referenced article, also published Saturday, that President Trump unnecessarily disparaged Harris at a rally held Friday night in Londonderry, NH following the four-day/night Republican National Convention.

Disagreeing with CNN’s position that Trump routinely insults women, Baumann wrote, in part:

…If people want to be the vice president or president then he or she needs to be able to handle public scrutiny. It doesn’t matter if they’re white, black, brown, yellow, orange or any other color of the rainbow. Their record – or lack thereof – should be called into question if he or she did something that’s questionable. Their record should undergo scrutiny so the American people know who they’re electing and why.

Unsurprisingly, neither the Baumann editorial nor the CNN column raised the issue of whether or not Harris is constitutionally eligible to serve as vice president.  Although not stated in the U.S. Constitution, the 12th Amendment stipulates that any vice-presidential candidate must meet the qualifications of president.  Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution states that the president must be a “natural born Citizen,” have resided in the country for 14 years, and be 35 years of age or older.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

While there is no doubt that Harris meets the latter two requirements, some constitutional researchers say she does not qualify as a “natural born Citizen” because neither of her parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of her birth.  On August 14, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton opened a discussion about Harris’s eligibility, citing the 14th-Amendment question discussed by Chapman University law professor John Eastman in a Newsweek piece which reportedly garnered a visceral reaction from many readers.

In his column, Eastman questioned whether or not the 14th Amendment would have included Harris’s parents as “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The mainstream media, including many well-known “conservative” websites, noticeably avoids any discussion of “eligibility” as it relates to Harris, just as it did for Barack Hussein Obama when he sought and won the presidency in 2008 and 2012.  On August 14, 2020, NBC Nightly News characterized anyone asking questions about Harris’s eligibility as part of a “racist birther conspiracy” and, without presenting any research into the issue, declared Harris eligible for either the vice-presidency or the presidency.]

Our reader’s email to Baumann reads:

Beth Baumann-

Your column today (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/08/29/cnn-comes-out-with-a-bogus-article-about-how-trump-is-launching-baseless-attacks-on-harris-n2575298) correctly notes as to public figures aspiring to high office that “[t]heir record should undergo scrutiny so the American people know who they’re electing and why.”

If that is true (as I believe it most certainly is), why is there such resistance to allowing a discussion — much less even an examination — of Kamala Harris’s constitutional bona fides under the 12th Amendment?  And please, the decision in the Wong Kim Ark case does not “settle” the question, as cogently pointed out in the dissent therein… you did know there was a dissent… did you not?

The Supreme Court has never addressed in a ripe “case or controversy” the question of who is (and who is not) a “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution’s “Eligibility Clause” in the context of a sitting president or vice-president or actual aspirants to those offices.  Never.

You (as well as Townhall) would do well to delve deeper into the issue rather than marginalize it and toss it to the curb.  After all, should not Ms. Harris’s constitutional eligibility “undergo scrutiny so the American people know who they’re electing and why?”

Keep up the good and important work at Townhall.com.

 

 

29 Responses to "Reader Asks Townhall.com Author Why Harris’s Eligibility Cannot be Explored"

  1. Bob68   Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 8:57 AM

    More on Security clearances………
    Just before Obama left office he signed an Executive Order making big changes in the security clearance process. I believe these changes were to cover for Obama’s use of E.O. 13467, which was signed by George W, Bush and mandated by Congress, (Pelosi and Reid), to be placed in effect beginning in January of 2009, just in time for Obama. IMO Obama’s last minute changes were to make the process more difficult for the Trump administration and to prevent them from noticing the, “custom made for Obama”, E.O. 13467 which allowed Obama to more easily place his Muslim Brotherhood friends and others within his administration. E.O. 13467 was only in effect during Obama’s administration. Obama’s selection of John Brennan as FBI Director and James Clapper as DNI also made it easier for Obama to allow whomever he wanted to see America’s classified information without getting an FBI background check.
    The installation of Obama was obviously well planned and involved many people from both political parties…………..Hillary was suppose to seal the deal on the Globalist/Communist take-over of America from the inside but lost to Donald Trump….creating the obvious panicked attempts to remove President Trump from office.
    A lot of changes were made to E.O. 13467 by the E.O signed by Obama in January of 2016. I seriously doubt these changes were made to make to process better for the incoming Trump administration………….This link is to Obama’s Jan.17 E.O.:

    https://federalnewsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017-Civil-Service-Rules-EO.pdf

    Someone needs to investigate all of this and release the findings within a few weeks as still more evidence of the planning done IMO specifically for Obama’s
    usurpation of America’s presidency…..and at the last minute changed by Obama before Trump was sworn-in to hide what was done and to make the security process more difficult for the Trump Administration………

    Reply
  2. Rob Laity   Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 3:38 AM

    United States,ex rel,Robert C. Laity vs. U.S. Senator Kamala Devi Harris,U.S.District Court for D.C. filed August 31, 2020. More to come. Stay tuned.

    Reply
    1. Dennis Becker   Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 10:02 AM

      Is this that Quo Warranto thing?

      Reply
      1. Bud White   Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 10:52 PM

        Anything filed yet?

        Reply
      2. Bud White   Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 12:36 AM

        Doesn’t Laity have to be the original source when this is public information?

        Rockwell International Corp v. United States.

        https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/549/457/#tab-opinion-1962193

        31 U.S. Code § 3730.Civil actions for false claims(e)(4)

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3730

        Reply
    2. Pat Novak   Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 8:08 PM

      Yes, it appears to be a qui tam action filed under the False Claims Act. Phil Berg tried this against President Obama and it went no where.

      Reply
      1. Rob Laity   Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 4:08 AM

        It is not a Qui Tam action Pat. It is an “Information in the form of Quo Warranto at Common Law” action. A Civil action that is brought by me, acting “In behalf of the United States”. An Ex Rel proceeding. I had to first approach the U.S. Attorney General to seek permission. https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/08/14/citizen-seeks-court-order-to-kamala-harris-to-prove-constitutional-eligibility. Quo Warranto: BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU ENTER INTO the public office you are seeking? A process by which a demand is made that one prove that they are entitled and eligible to be in the office sought. Kamala Harris is NOT!!

        Reply
        1. Jack Cockle   Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 11:54 AM

          Did the Attorney General grant permission?

          Did the court accept the filing?

  3. Bob68   Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 6:46 PM

    James Carter,
    Here is an article on who must have a background check and who does not, from 2016:
    https://www.thepostemail.com/2016/07/06/who-must-have-a-security-background-check/

    There are a lot of people who are not required to get a background check….this was mostly done by Executive Order over the years and the E.O. signed in June of 2008, E.O. 43467 by GWB, (and mandated by Congress to be placed in effect beginning in January 2009), seemed tailor-made for Obama the fraud and his administration to get as many hate America people in Obama’s inner circle as possible. Check it out, the links to verification information at the article still work.

    Reply
  4. James Carter   Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 2:55 PM

    Amazingly there is no Constitutional or U.S. Code requirement that a candidate for Vice-President or President be vetted for eligibility for the office they are seeking OR that they pass an FBI background investigation in order to reduce the chance they might be a risk to our national security or nation itself. NONE!

    Any such requirements are up to the individual states to establish and, someone please correct this if it’s wrong, Hawaii is the only state that statutorily requires such candidates be certified as being Constitutionally eligible for the office they are seeking. However, Hawaii leaves the actual vetting and certifying to the candidate’s state political party. I have not been able to determine who vets and certifies independent or write-in candidates in Hawaii.

    The lack of required standardized vetting, certification and background investigations for Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates — and those in the Presidential line of succession as well — is beyond preposterous. It is, in fact, a open invitation for a “Manchurian Candidate” or “Trojan Horse” to subvert the Democratic Republic the Founders gave us.

    Reply
  5. Jeffrey Harrison   Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 9:37 PM

    Why let a crisis go to waste? Isn’t this Harris thing a blessing? Perhaps a second bite of the
    apple? Isn’t it time for all of us to contact our reps and the media of this issue?

    As for Trump, I am aware that he had met with Sheriff Joe and that he had made at least some 22 statements of Obama lack of qualifications (that I know of). At the Sheriff’s meeting, it seems to me that they had compared notes and shared information and evidence.

    As I recall, didn’t Trump also state he had hired investigators and he had stated, “you’ll never
    guess what they found”. So, I believe when the timing is right, I Obama and others could be
    held accountable in the near future. Surley, Team Obama and the Deep State can’t sleep
    well and night.

    Reply
  6. Jack Cockle   Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 4:27 PM

    Who did Arpaio and Zullo show their forensic evidence to?

    Reply
  7. 12thGenerationAmerican   Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 4:04 PM

    Most of these idiots believe that if she was not born by Caesarian Section, then she is a Natural Born Citizen!

    Reply
    1. Rob Laity   Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 3:29 AM

      Children birthed by Caesarian section if done so in the US to two US parents are Natural Born Citizens.

      Reply
  8. ELmo   Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 3:40 PM

    The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof found in the 14th amendment, has nothing to do with conferring “Natural Born Citizenship”.It deals with the qualifications required to be a naturalized “Citizen”. Ill informed people want to conflate the terms “Natural Born Citizen” and “Citizen” in order to avoid dealing with the difference between the citizenship qualification (“Citizen”) to be a Senator or Representative and the more stringent citizenship qualification (“Natural Born Citizen”) to be President of the United States. Trump should never have surrendered his challenge to Obama’s legitimacy!!

    If Obama was a legit President, why did the Arpaio/ Zullo forensic evidence go unchallenged?? The evidence was virtually ignored by the press – instead they attacked Arpaio/ Zullo- No other experts that I am aware of, challenged the evidence produced in the only legal investigation of Obama’s qualifications to be POTUS; a comprehensive five year investigation,which was resisted by almost everybody but which involved qualified expert forensic analysts, one of whom was employed by the very law firm who represented Obama and another internationally recognized law firm speciallizing in digital forensic analysis. Why was the evidence ignored????

    Why did Trump drop the challenge???? Deep State Pressure??

    WHY?????

    God Bless Ameriica
    ELmo

    Reply
  9. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 2:57 PM

    Eligibility issue for some past, present, and possible future candidates explored. See: https://www.scribd.com/lists/22182725/Some-Politicians-Seeking-High-Office-Who-Are-Not-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-of-U-S

    CDR Kerchner (Ret) — http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

    Reply
  10. Jack Cockle   Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 1:00 PM

    Who explored and determined Harris’ eligibility?

    Which states refused to put Cruz on the ballot?

    Reply
    1. Gary Wilmott   Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 2:46 PM

      Answer as to Harris: Obviously no one with the power or intestinal fortitude to do anything about it. The DNC has no doubt blindly certified Harris as being constitutionally eligible to be their VPOTUS nominee despite obvious constitutional deficiencies. Harris is clearly not a NATURAL born citizen and was born with dual allegiances to both the United States and Jamaica. Our political class and the media (that includes the likes of Hannity, Carlson and Levin) are making a mockery of our Constitution. I am currently working on a Power Point presentation for my congressional representative (I have been promised a meeting) concerning Harris’ lack of eligibility. However, I have no illusions that the presentation would be deep-sixed by Kevin McCarthy (he won’t touch this issue – he wants to be the next Speaker) or the appropriate committee (headed by a Democrat of course) that would be charged with looking into this issue would likewise throw this in the trash. And of course my congressperson would then be targeted as an insufferable birther and conspiracy theorist for even raising the issue on behalf of a constituent. Let’s face it, it’s very difficult to make any headway on this issue. Probably, the only hope will be during a Trump second term. Only then, can Trump re-address the Obama usurpation and the reckless disregard for the Constitution by a myriad of unlawful presidential wannabes.

      Reply
      1. Jack Cockle   Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 5:08 PM

        From Gary Wilmott’s comment, it sounds like no government official has examined or determined Harris’ eligibility. But it also sounds like the DNC has certified Harris to be eligible.

        Reply
        1. Gary Wilmott   Monday, August 31, 2020 at 12:50 AM

          Whether the DNC certification has been signed yet…I don’t know. If not…soon. They need to be sent to the secretaries of state to have the name put on the ballot. However, you are correct, no one in the government has or will vet Kamala Harris. Shocking, but true.

  11. Stephen J. Hiller   Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 12:43 PM

    The MAJOR voices on conservative talk radio ALL ignored Obama’s lack of eligibility – Limbaugh, Hannity, Judge Jeanine, etc. They all knew, but ignored. They were all given the “Sheriff’s Report” and never bothered. Fraud and Corruption, thy name is Washington.

    Reply
    1. Tim   Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 2:18 PM

      There was one (1) big-name FOX news anchor that talked about the Arpio/Zullo investigation and the Obama document fraud issue.. But, he only mentioned it during one segment on one of his shows..That was back in early 2016… That was 1 segment on 1 show, he hasn’t talked about the subject since.. That guy is Lou Dobbs… Obviously Mr. Dobbs was told to stand down

      Reply
  12. marlene   Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 11:37 AM

    Also, the states can refuse to put Harris on the ballot. Some states did the same thing to Ted Cruz, who is also ineligible. So it’s up to the people to let their “representatives” know they don’t want Kamala Harris on the ballots – and to demand it! The best thing to do is to file a lawsuit straight to the Supreme Court. Maybe this time, they won’t be told they have “no standing.”

    Reply
    1. Pat Novak   Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 8:12 PM

      I am not aware of any state that refused to place Ted Cruz on the ballot. Could you tell us which ones who refused?

      Reply
  13. marlene   Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 11:32 AM

    Kamala Harris’ eligibility WAS explored. It is determined that she is most definitely NOT a natural born citizen and is NOT eligible for the position of VP, President and Commander in Chief. That is why it’s being ignored. The globalist left wants another obama.

    Reply
  14. Rob Laity   Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 5:40 AM

    The U.S. Supreme Court HAS defined what a Natural Born Citizen is. One born IN the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves. Harris is NOT eligible.
    https://www.thepostemail.com2020/08/14/citizen-seeks-court-order-to-kamala-harris-to-prove-constitutional-eligibility/

    Reply
    1. Lee Sherman   Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 4:38 PM

      Rob, You are correct. The definition of natural born was modified/clarified by a unanimous vote of the SCoUS in 1876 which agrees with your comment. She was born in the US, but neither of her parents were citizens at that time, so no natural born status for her.

      Reply
      1. Jack Cockle   Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 5:28 PM

        No court has read Minor so narrowly.

        More importantly, it would appear no one thinks Minor applies to Harris because no one has sued to challenge her placement on any ballot.

        Reply
  15. Jack Cockle   Saturday, August 29, 2020 at 10:51 PM

    Townhall’s inaction is understandable: after Eastman’s article was widely discredited, the White House distanced itself from it. Since then, no other scholar has spoken up; no lawyer or other citizen has filed a legal challenge. If no one else is willing to carry the mantle, why should it?

    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.