KAMALA HARRIS: Unlawful Candidate

“THE CONSTITUTION MATTERS”

by Gary M. Wilmott, ©2020

(Oct. 14, 2020) — Democrat Party candidate, California Senator Kamala Harris, is running for VPOTUS, despite being constitutionally INELIGIBLE.

I wrote to Senator Harris in December of 2017 and put her on notice that any attempt by her to run a campaign for the presidency would be unlawful and in violation of the presidential eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution.  She responded with a form letter ignoring my protestations, choosing instead to defy the Constitution, raise campaign funds under false pretenses, and continues to defraud the American people to this day.

Section 1 of Article II of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President, neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution mandates that a candidate for VPOTUS be a NATURAL BORN citizen, the same qualification required for the POTUS in Article II.  In fact, the only government jobs in the United States that require Natural Born citizenship are that of POTUS and VPOTUS.

Kamala Harris is not a NATURAL BORN citizen.  Harris was born on Oct. 20, 1964, in Oakland, California, to a Jamaican citizen father and an Indian citizen mother.  Kamala’s parents were foreigners – not under the jurisdiction of the United States government – owing allegiance to Jamaica and India, respectively.  As such, Harris is a statutory citizen of the United States pursuant to the 14th Amendment (effective since 1898 via the Supreme Court Opinion in Wong Kim Ark v U.S.).  Harris is a naturalized citizen at/from birth, because of a charitable interpretation of the 14th Amendment granting birthright citizenship to alien children. While “native-born” citizens and “natural born” citizen are describable as “born citizens,” only one is a natural “born citizen”; the other is a naturalized “born citizen.”

Domestically born 14th Amendment constitutional citizens, like Harris, are INELIGIBLE to be POTUS or VPOTUS because they are born with a foreign nationality competing with their American nationality.  Kamala Harris is NOT – nor can she ever be – a NATURAL BORN Citizen of the United States.  As such, Harris’s candidacy for VPOTUS is unlawful and a manifest fraud.

If Harris had been born to Natural Born or Naturalized American citizen parents, she would be eligible to be POTUS or VPOTUS because such children are NATURAL BORN American citizens. The USSC has clarified this fact in several opinions, and has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any citizenship category other than those born in the country of American citizen parents.

Kamala Harris (Source:  Senator Kamala Harris website)

Harris’s illegitimate campaign for the presidency is not surprising, however.  There have been numerous efforts in recent years – by BOTH parties – to circumvent the Natural Born Citizen requirement and flagrantly ignore the Founders’ intent and clear meaning of Article II.

This current election cycle saw unconstitutional candidacies by Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang, in addition to Harris.  There was also talk this summer about Tammy Duckworth as a possible VP candidate for Joe Biden.  She, too, is not a Natural Born Citizen.

The previous presidential election cycle saw Republicans Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Bobby Jindal all run unlawful campaigns. And of course, in 2008, there was the successful usurpation by Barack Obama who, to this day, has failed to provide certifiable/verifiable documentation – of his place of birth, legal citizenship, and true parentage – to the American people. This ongoing failure to vet candidates for the most powerful job in the world is unconscionable, and must be rectified.

Even before this recent surge in unlawful candidacies, there have been numerous attempts to redefine Natural Born Citizen. In 1975, there was an effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathan Bingham  [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33 –  which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides 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.”

From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there have been eight different congressional attempts to alter the natural born citizen requirement for POTUS in the U.S. Constitution – all of them failing in committee — and all of them occurring during Barack Obama’s rise to political power, and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

These extraconstitutional efforts to redefine and/or completely alter the traditional interpretation and true meaning of the term “natural born citizen” affirms the distinction between “citizen” and “Natural Born” citizen, and proves incontrovertibly that politicians from both parties have been fully aware of these competing definitions for many years.

The purpose and intent of the constitutional “natural born citizen” provision was to exclude “foreigners” from the presidency. Natural born citizenship applies only to one’s status at the time of one’s birth.   Thus, the only “foreigners” the provision could have possibly excluded were persons who were “foreigners” when they were born. The “natural born citizen” provision could not have achieved even this limited purpose — excluding persons who were “foreigners” at birth — unless the term “natural born citizen” meant one who was not a “foreigner” (foreign citizen or subject) when he or she was born.

In July of 1787, John Jay, a member of the Continental Congress, wrote a letter to George Washington, President of the Continental Congress.

In his letter, Jay wrote, “Permit me to hint whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.”

The Founders took John Jay’s concerns to heart and decided to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born.”  The fear was that the fundamental cultural, political, philosophical, and religious influences of the parents would undoubtedly influence the direction of their child’s upbringing. The best safeguard to limit foreign influence and allegiance was to ensure that the president be born of American citizen parents, thus strengthening loyalty to country and the values and principles of the Constitution.

The first seven presidents were not NATURAL born citizens. They could not be as they were British citizens, as were their parents.  If citizen and Natural Born Citizen meant the same thing, then there would have been no need for the Founding Fathers to incorporate a “grandfather clause” in the presidential eligibility clause in Article II (…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,…).

The word “natural” means “of the nature of”; “naturally, a part of”; “by the laws of nature.”  A “natural born” citizen is one who was at birth, a member of the political society, naturally.  The constitutional Natural Born mandate would mean, further, that no other government would have any claim upon the POTUS and commander-in-chief of the military, because his or her sole allegiance was to the government into which he or she had been born.

Natural born citizenship is derived from Natural Law.  It is irrevocable and above all law – even the Constitution – because it is an unalienable right by the laws of “Nature and Nature’s God.”  No citizen by law can also be a natural citizen since natural citizenship is not granted by any U.S. law ever written – including the Constitution – nor by any court ruling or administrative policy.  Natural Born Citizenship is viewed as a natural unalienable right that neither the government nor its citizens have any authority to grant or rescind.  It is a natural right that all humans are born with, and which government does not create.

Artificial, man-made citizenship (positive law) – including legal citizenship via the 14th Amendment (“constitutional citizenship”) – is not natural citizenship by any stretch of the imagination.  To think and maintain otherwise defies common sense and is contrary to the Constitution and the understanding and intent of the Founding Fathers.

Statutory citizens like Kamala Harris – regardless of her birth on American soil – are not eligible to be President, and if the father is not even an immigrant but is merely a student guest of the government then his child is not a U.S. citizen at all!  That certainly appears to be the facts surrounding the Kamala Harris birth narrative.  Regardless, only the 14th Amendment can afford Senator Kamala Harris any right of claim to American citizenship.  But because she is not NATURAL Born, Harris has no legal right or claim to the high offices of vice-president or president of the United States.

Further complicating Harris’s legal citizenship status is the fact that under Chapter 2 of the Constitution of Jamaica, a person born in Jamaica after 5 August 1962, or born outside of Jamaica after that date to a father who is a Jamaican citizen, is AUTOMATICALLY CONSIDERED A JAMAICAN CITIZEN AT BIRTH!  Kamala Harris was born Oct. 20, 1964 and her father was a citizen of Jamaica at the time of her birth.  Therefore, Kamala Harris is also a citizen of Jamaica, pursuant to Section 3Cb of the Constitution of Jamaica.  That means that Harris has every right and privilege to move to Jamaica tomorrow, apply for a Jamaican passport, vote, and participate in Jamaica’s affairs.

It is outrageous to envision that any individual possessing citizenship with a foreign country, such as Kamala Harris, who was born an American citizen pursuant to the 14th Amendment and obtained automatic citizenship of Jamaica – by descent through her father – should ever be allowed to serve as vice-president or president of the United States.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/Advice-about-Possible-Loss-of-US-Nationality-Dual-Nationality/Dual-Nationality.html

The U.S. government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it, because of these obvious conflicting allegiances and possible foreign influences.  Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens often conflict with U.S. law. This is because dual citizens owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.  They are required to obey the laws of both countries.

The Constitution affirms, defends, and protects our rights to free speech, freedom of religion, privacy, trial by jury, etc.  If we say it is okay to ignore the Constitution regarding any candidate’s eligibility, we open the door for someone else to say it is okay to ignore the Constitution regarding our rights as citizens.

If there is an issue with the Constitution, the proper remedy is a Constitutional Amendment. We cannot simply dismiss Constitutional requirements, because they are inconvenient, or we think they are irrelevant or do not like what they say.  If any one part of the Constitution does not matter, why would any other part of the Constitution matter?

To have confidence in our government, the American people need to know that their elected officials are holding office legally. This confidence is especially important for our men and women of the military, who have sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Once we ignore the natural born citizen provision, we open the door wide to the possibility of a person with conflicting loyalties — perhaps stronger than to our own — to be the sole commander of our military.  If there is any “reasonable” doubt regarding the President’s Constitutional eligibility, we must resolve this doubt in order to preserve the confidence of the American people, and especially the men and women in uniform who protect us.

It is time for the conservative media and all patriots to bring this matter to the attention of the American voters – before it is too late. Stop avoiding the issue. What are you afraid of? The country is on the brink.  Exposing Kamala Harris is a critical first step in taking back our country from the treasonous Marxist movement that is destroying our country. The Constitution matters.

20 Responses to "KAMALA HARRIS: Unlawful Candidate"

  1. Tom   Friday, October 16, 2020 at 6:39 AM

    Unlawful she may be but the ignorance of the electorate prevents correction.
    So many mistakenly view ‘natural’ as not a ‘C-section’ birth.
    The ignorance is exasperating.

    Reply
    1. Rob Laity   Friday, October 16, 2020 at 8:59 AM

      I understand your point. While we are on the subject of C-Sections, however, technically as long as the baby delivered by C-Section is the child of two US Parents and the C-section is performed on US Soil, that child is an NBC.

      Reply
    2. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Friday, October 16, 2020 at 8:15 PM

      And then there is the “C section” of relevance to Kamala Harris, i.e., section 3C in the Jamaican Constitution — the Constitution of Jamaica, Chapter 2, Section 3C – Kamala Harris was a Jamaican Citizen at Birth per her foreign national, non-immigrant in 1964, Jamaican Citizen father (sojourning in the USA on a temporary VISA) per the Jamaican Constitution: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/09/19/kamala-harris-owes-homage-and-allegiance-to-queen-of-jamaica/

      ;-)

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

      Reply
  2. Rob Laity   Friday, October 16, 2020 at 2:33 AM

    Being born in October, 1964 to a British Jamaican (A British commonwealth nation) Father and a Mother from another British Commonwealth Nation (India) Kamala harris was subject to the Provisions of the British Nationality Act, enacted in May 1964 and which became effective two months later in July,1961. Three months before Harris was born. She was a British Subject when born. Is there proof that she denounced that British Citizenship status ever? In any even she is a naturalized US Citizen and NOT an NBC.

    Reply
  3. Jeffrey Harrison   Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 6:51 PM

    Gary nice article here. It was well done. Also, you have a valid point about the media. Indeed, they would go bonkers. I wouldn’t expect Trump to take any action on the usurpation of Obama and the fraud that occurred until after the election. Just like after Obama stated to Glad “that he would have more flexibility after the election”, so too will Trump have more flexibility after the election to take on fake Barry. At this time Trump needs to stump for a second term and win.

    Since timing is everything, Trump first needs to get elected to “keep America great” and then deal with “Barry” or whoever he really is after the election. Can Barry and
    Team Obama sleep well at night? Likely, Trump will win election, and have more
    flexibility then.
    .

    Reply
    1. Rob Laity   Friday, October 16, 2020 at 3:15 AM

      I am suing Kamala Harris in DC.. I expect to win. The proverbial waste matter will hit the proverbial rotating apparatus then. After that, Obama’s subterfuge will HAVE to also be revisited by the courts and addressed.

      Reply
  4. Stephen J Hiller   Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 12:15 PM

    So why didn’t Pence ask Harris about this in the debate? Makes me wonder if maybe I should NOT vote for for a Trump/ Pence ticket. Neither one appears ready to discuss the Article 2 or the 12th Amendment. Might as well throw out all the rest of the Constitution while they are at it. Is anyone else SICK AND TIRED of having to choose between the “lesser of two evils”?

    Reply
    1. Gary Wilmott   Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 1:41 PM

      Oh please. Have you seen the media in this country? You know the answer to your question.

      Reply
    2. Rob Laity   Friday, October 16, 2020 at 3:12 AM

      Stephan, Why didn’t BIDEN ask Harris about this? Pelosi helped Obama usurp the Presidency. McCain was also ineligible. It’s a bi-partisan scam. Both parties have proferred ineligible candidates. It was TRUMP that confronted Obama on this issue. Trump IS an NBC. Trump respects the Constitution. It’s Biden and Harris and their leftist ilk that WANT to dismantle the constitution and the USA. NOT Trump.

      Reply
  5. Joanna Brady   Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 11:10 AM

    “While “native-born” citizens and “natural born” citizen are describable as “born citizens,” only one is a natural “born citizen”; the other is a naturalized “born citizen.””

    If this distinction exists, why are their so many references to the requirement that the President be a native-born citizen? The earliest I found is 1803.

    Reply
    1. Gary Wilmott   Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 1:43 PM

      And their parents must ALSO be American citizens at time of birth. Please read my article with comprehension.

      Reply
      1. Joanna Brady   Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 3:28 PM

        So some native-born citizens are natural born citizens?

        And natives are always the same as natural born citizens?

        So when St. George Tucker wrote,
        “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,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence”

        He meant with two citizen parents?

        https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_1s18.html

        Reply
    2. Rob Laity   Friday, October 16, 2020 at 3:07 AM

      Article II does NOT use the term of art “Native born citizen” OR “Born a citizen”. It says a President must be a “Natural Born Citizen”. One born IN the US to parents who are both US citizens themselves.

      Reply
  6. Joanna Brady   Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 9:45 AM

    “If citizen and Natural Born Citizen meant the same thing, then there would have been no need for the Founding Fathers to incorporate a “grandfather clause” in the presidential eligibility clause in Article II ”

    That is one interpretation but another more plausible one is the Framers were making an allowance for those not born in the Colonies like James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton.

    For example this exchange during the Convention shows that those not born in the Colonies were considered non-natives and would have been ineligible to be President without the grandfather clause (in this case the debates were over senators being limited to natives)

    August 9, 1787

    Governeur Morris proposed insted of 4 years 14. He would have confined the members he said to natives-but for its appearance and the effects it might have against the system.

    Mr. Mason had the same wishes, but he could not think of excluding those foreigners who had taken a part and borne with the country the dangers and burdenths [sic] of the war.

    Mr. Maddison was against such an invidious distinction. The matter might be safely intrusted to the respective legislatures.

    Doctor Franklin was of the same opinion.

    Mr. Willson expressed himself feelingly on the same side. It might happen, he said, that he who had been thought worthy of being trusted with the framing of the Constitution, might be excluded from it. He had not been born in this country. He considered such exclusing as one of the most galling chains which the human mind could experience. It was wrong to deprive the government of the talents virtue and abilities of such foreigners as might chuse to remove to this country. The corrup[t] of other countries would not come here. Those who were tired in opposing such corruptions would be drawn hither, etc. etc.

    Papers of Dr. James McHenry on the Federal Convention of 1787.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/mchenry.asp

    James Madison’s notes contain the same discussion with more details and includes the discussion from August 13th, 1787. The August 13th debate includes this statement by Wilson

    “Mr. WILSON, cited Pennsylva. as a proof of the advantage of encouraging emigrations. It was perhaps the youngest [except Georgia] settlemt. on the Atlantic; yet it was at least among the foremost in population & prosperity. He remarked that almost all the Genl. officers of the Pena. line of the late army were foreigners. And no complaint had ever been made against their fidelity or merit. Three of her deputies to the Convention [Mr. R. Morris, Mr. Fitzimmons & himself] were also not natives. He had no objection to Col. Hamiltons motion & would withdraw the one made by himself.”

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_813.asp

    “Three of her deputies to the Convention [Mr. R. Morris, Mr. Fitzimmons & himself] were also not natives.”

    Madison’s notes for August 9th;

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_809.asp

    Reply
    1. Gary Wilmott   Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 10:35 AM

      All your words and links to even more lengthy verbage are irrelevant as they do not address at all, any discussion of NATURAL BORN citizenship as it relates to PRESIDENTIAL eligibility. Nice try.

      Reply
      1. Joanna Brady   Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 12:42 PM

        Vattel says that natives are born in the country to two citizen parents.

        But you say the Framers did not consider themselves natives in 1787.

        But the people at the Convention recognized that there were natives and non-natives.

        It’s a pickle.

        Reply
        1. Rob Laity   Friday, October 16, 2020 at 2:53 AM

          NOT a “Pickle” at all: When the Constitution was effected the United States of America was established formally. Prior to that there could be NO U.S. Citizens who were subject to the new constitution.

          The founders and everyone else who participated in the cause for independence were British subjects until the Declaration of indepndence was served on King George the III. The founders were natives of Britain. Those born in the colonies were born British. AFTER, the US was established anyone in the US at the time who were supporters of the US cause for independence became US Citizens.

          Those born to THESE newly minted US Citizens became themselves “Natural Born Citizens” of the US. The first (7) Presidents were ex-Brits. There was no one born to US Citizens at that time in the US who were OLD enough to be President. One must be (35).
          Those first (7) people were grandfathered in to Article II since none met the NBC requirement. Martin Van Buren, born in NY in 1782 was born to two US Citizens and was our first NBC President. Each and every other President was born in the USA to parents who were both US Citizens themselves or who were grandfathered in (alive during the signing of the Constitution) EXCEPT Chester Arthur and Barack Obama (Imposters in the Oval Office).

    2. Rob Laity   Friday, October 16, 2020 at 3:04 AM

      Slashing through all that, the fact remains that a Natural Born Citizen requirement ended UP in the Constitution and it MUST be adhered to. Neither Obama or Arthur, Harris,Cruz,Rubio,Jindal,Swarzenegger, Duckworth or Yang were alive at the signing of the Constitution. They are NOT in the Grandfathered Class. Therefore, THEY MUST meet the NBC requirement. One born IN the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves. THAT is the law of the land.

      Reply
  7. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 1:32 AM

    A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

    Reply
  8. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 1:30 AM

    Kamala Harris in NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Read, download, and print a PDF copy of this White Paper about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

    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.