by Tom Arnold, ©2021
(Jan. 8, 2021) — The Democrat Party is claiming that it will have control of the now 50-50 Senate due to the “tie-breaker” and President of the Senate being Vice-President-Elect Kamala Harris. The only problem is that Harris is not constitutionally-eligible to be vice president or president.
To hold the office of vice-president or president of the United States, one must, according to the U.S. Constitution, be a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN. This requirement is set forth in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:
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 also is applicable and, in part, reads as follows:
No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Although I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, permit me to try to make this matter clear for you. The Constitution does not say one must be a “citizen” to run for or become elected vice-president or president. It says “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.” To make it even more clear, it is helpful to point out that our president or vice-president can NOT be a native born citizen. NOT a naturalized citizen. NOT a dual (or multiple) citizen. And, NOT an anchor-baby citizen.
Many who are constitutional scholars define NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN as being a person born on United States soil to parents both of whom were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. This is what is implied and meant by “natural born,” i.e. not spelled out anywhere in the handwritten laws of man. Instead, it is the “law” of nature.
Our country’s 44th so-called “president,” Barack HUSSEIN Obama, was NOT a natural born American citizen. But wasn’t he a law professor or constitutional scholar at one time? Oh, well! Then, there is Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. Didn’t he swear in Obama to the presidency in 2009 and again in 2013, all the while knowing that Obama was constitutionally ineligible? In fact, I suspect that Roberts knew that Obama was a CIA and Deep State-sponsored Manchurian Candidate who had multiple citizenship and conceivably could pose a threat or danger to our American way of life and republic. To make matters worse if that’s possible, the high court, presided over by Chief Justice Roberts, has refused to hear any litigants’ cases which might necessitate defining or re-affirming the widely-accepted meaning of “natural born citizen.” In fact, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas once said that the high court was “EVADING” the issue! In my view, there could be nothing more relevant to our Constitution and the Supreme Court’s role of interpreting the law than resolving the controversy surrounding the meaning and applicability of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. I believe it is a matter of national security.
This brings us to the issue of the constitutional eligibility of vice-president-elect Senator Kamala Harris. It is true that Senator Harris was born in Oakland, California. However, her father, Donald J. Harris, was a Jamaican citizen at the time, and her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a citizen of the country of India at the time. Whether or not either or both of the parents ever became American citizens (naturalized), or when, is not clear from what I have read. Nevertheless, the fact is that Senator Harris’s parents were NOT citizens of the United States when she was born, and this, according to many legal experts, disqualifies her from ever becoming vice-president or president. And, it obviously prevents her from becoming the presiding officer and president of the U.S. Senate. So much for the Democrat Party having control of the Senate.
In conclusion, our country already has had one constitutionally-ineligible “president” in modern times. The extremely negative effects of it on our society are still being felt, and that’s putting it mildly. That is what our wise framers were concerned about when they mandated the natural born citizen requirement. Now, however, it looks as if we may be having another constitutionally-unqualified holder of our country’s highest offices. Another word for such office holder is USURPER. Unfortunately, it is beginning to look as if ANYBODY FROM ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WITH ANY FOREIGN PARENTS AND HAVING ANY FOREIGN OR ANTI-AMERICAN WORLD VIEWS AND PHILOSOPHIES CAN BECOME VICE-PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! So, who among us will respect our framers’ Constitution, be dedicated to the preservation of our American way of life, and stand up bravely and patriotically to do the right thing before it really might be TOO LATE THIS TIME? We know who it won’t be, don’t we?! It won’t be Chief Justice Roberts, Barack Hussein Obama, Kamala Harris, or others in the radical left Deep State like them.
From Joseph DeMaio:
———————–
Mr. Wilson says “Joseph DeMaio is entitled to his opinion, but it is not shared by the judiciary. Many have argued in courts that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided, but none have succeeded. The U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings remain the law.”
Once upon a time, Scott v. Sanford – deeming even freed slaves to be “property” and not “citizens” – was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling which remained “the law.” Wrongly decided from the start, it took a civil war and two constitutional amendments to address the issue and rectify that which the Supreme Court refused to do. Although Scott v. Sandford was abrogated by those amendments, the case has never been overruled by the Court and it still exists in the Court’s official reported decisions.
A phrase coined long ago by former U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) posits: “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” While Justice Gray may have been entitled to his own opinion in Wong Kim Ark – by the way, one not shared by the dissenters – he was not entitled to offer up as true the false “fact” that Congress had preserved “in the same words” the modifier “natural born Citizen” from 1 Stat. 103 when it enacted 1 Stat. 414.
Has the “judiciary” or anyone else yet explained – at all – why Justice Gray’s factual error remains OK? I’ll wait.
That the U.S. Supreme Court got Dred Scott wrong doesn’t mean that every decision it makes is wrong. (A reductio ad absurdum.) Nor is the Dred Scott decision a license for people to ignore other decisions that they don’t like. Unlike Dred Scott, the majority decision in Wong Kim Ark remains the law.
Ironically, a concurrent opinion the abhorrent Dred Scott ruling relied on Vattel.
Response to “Henry Wilson” on Wong Kim Ark from Joseph DeMaio:
————————-
Mr. Wilson is correct that Wong Kim Ark is a U.S. Supreme Court decision… but he fails to note that the decision is based, in no small part, on a manifestly erroneous statement of purported fact (intentional or otherwise) undermining the opinion. This error is discussed here (The Laity Complaint and Wong Kim Ark – The Post & Email), but is summarized below.
Specifically, Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray said in the majority opinion which he authored, 169 U.S. at 672-673: “In the act of 1790, the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows: ‘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.’ 1 Stat. 103 [at 104]. In 1795, this was re-enacted, in the same words, except in substituting, for the words ‘beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,’ the words, ‘out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States.’ Id. 415.” (Emphasis added).
That claim is demonstrably wrong. When Congress realized in 1795 that it could not amend the Constitution by a statute, it repealed 1 Stat. 103 in its entirety and enacted 1 Stat. 414. In doing so it did not “re-enact” the prior law “in the same words” to purportedly preserve the “natural born citizen” status of children born “beyond sea.”
Justice Gray took the time to identify in the 1795 statute – 1 Stat. 414, Justice Gray’s “Id. 415” signal in his opinion being another anomaly – one alteration of the language of 1 Stat. 103…, but not the other one which deleted the modifier “natural born” before the word “citizen.” The 1795 statute is demonstrably not a “re-enactment” of the 1790 statute “in the same words” as claimed by Justice Gray. On the contrary, the subsequent statute was enacted with different words and with corresponding different, substantive legal import.
Indeed, a casual reading of Justice Gray’s language in the Wong Kim Ark opinion, without further examination of the history of both 1 Stat. 103 and 1 Stat. 414, could easily lead readers – including former U.S. Solicitors General – to conclude, wrongly, that 1 Stat. 414 preserved the “natural-born” modifier before the word “citizen.” It does not. Although children born “beyond sea” to U.S. citizen parents are clearly “citizens” themselves…, they are not, as suggested by a casual and misinformed reading of Justice Gray’s opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case, “natural born Citizens” for Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 purposes. In fact, contrary to Justice Gray’s assertion, the Congress deleted “natural born” in 1 Stat. 414 in 1795 and has never since that time re-enacted the modifier to describe a child born to U.S. citizen parents beyond the boundaries of the United States as anything other than a “citizen.”
Full stop.
Joseph DeMaio is entitled to his opinion, but it is not shared by the judiciary. Many have argued in courts that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided, but none have succeeded. The U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings remain the law.
AQs I have been saying ever since she ran for President.
Anchor Babies are NOT eligible!
Certainly, the below listed individuals will not stand up and fight against this presidential usurpation: The following individuals also are not natural born Citizens, but they fraudulently applied for an Article II job, too:
1. Barack HUSSEIN Zer0Bama.
2. Marco Rubio.
3. Rafael E. (Ted) Cruz.
4. Bobby Jindal.
5. Tulsi Gabbard.
6. Andrew Yang.
Which scholars?
Not the ones we see paraded and glorified on the mainstream media.
Thanks, but that doesn’t really explain to whom Tom Arnold was referring.
Any one who has read and comprehended what John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, which most Obot constitutional scholars and SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark erroneously claim makes an anchor baby a natural born citizen, said constituted a natural born citizen:
“All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and in compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural born citizen except what is said in the Constitution in relation to [Native American] Indians”.
— John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1862
“I find no fault with the introductory clause of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.
— John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866
“John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment”
Point of Order:
While it is true Rep. Bingham wrote most of the 14th Amendment, he did not write the citizenship clause (Section 1, Clause 1) of the Amendment. That was added as an amendment to the House Joint Resolution 127 (the 14th Amendment) by Senator Jacob Howard.
You can read the original House Joint Resolution 127 (dated May 10th, 1866 and without the citizenship clause) here:
https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/artifact/hr-127-joint-resolution-proposing-amendment-constitution-united-states-may-10
You can read the amended House Joint Resolution 127 (dated May 29th, 1866 and with the citizenship clause in italics) here:
https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/artifact/hr-127-joint-resolution-proposing-amendment-constitution-united-states
On May 30th, 1866, Senator Howard propsed his amendment to H. J.R. 127. The debate can be found here:
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/pdf/congressglobe_2890.pdf
Wong Kim Ark was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Representative Bingham’s opinions, unlike the rulings of the U.S. Constitution, are not the law.