“WHY IS THERE SUCH RESISTANCE…?”
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.
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:
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.