by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret), blogging at CDRKerchner, ©2022
(Sep. 10, 2022) — As a Citizen of Jamaica at Birth via Her Jamaican Citizen Foreign National Father, Kamala Harris Owes Homage and Allegiance to the King of Jamaica and England
As a person born with dual allegiance, foreign influence, and dual-citizenship – Kamala Harris is thus NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. A “natural born Citizen” of the United States is a person born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to the USA and only the USA, i.e., a person born in the USA to parents who were both Citizens (born or naturalized) at the time of their child’s birth in the USA. A person born with no foreign citizenship and attendant foreign influence and allegiance claims on them, as per the Principles of Natural Law.
For more about Kamala Harris being a Jamaican Citizenship at Birth per the Constitution of Jamaica, Chapter 2, Section 3C, see this link: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/08/10/is-kamala-harris-eligible-to-be-joe-bidens-vp-by-gary-wilmott-americanthinker/ … and … https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/07/23/u-s-senator-kamala-harris-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-usa-not-eligible-to-be-president-and-cinc-or-vp/
The King of England is also the King of Jamaica. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Jamaica
Kamala Harris as a Jamaican Citizen at birth owes “homage” and allegiance to her Sovereign, the King of Jamaica, the King of England. Any claim to U.S. citizenship by her birth in California in 1964 to two non-U.S. Citizen (foreign national) parents in the USA on temporary VISA’s does not dissolve or abrogate or remove her required allegiance and homage owed at birth to Jamaica and the Queen of Jamaica, the Queen of England at the time of Kamala’s birth, and now the new King of England, King Charles III. She was born a dual-Citizen (and still is a dual-Citizen) with divided allegiance and foreign influence on her at and since her birth. She is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and thus constitutionally not eligible to serve as President and Commander in Chief, or to serve as the VP per the 12th Amendment (last line).
CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
P.S. Also read the following essays regarding the presidential eligibility term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of the U.S. Constitution:
1. A chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.
2. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.
3. The constitutional term “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. “Natural born Citizens” are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. Adjectives mean something. All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/
4. 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/
5. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a Natural Born Citizen: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/ …
6. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html or https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts
7. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ
8. Read, download, and print a PDF copy of this White Paper by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) 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
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
[Skip]
“Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.” William Rawle 1825
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships23.html
The author of the piece you cite wrote this:
“It cannot escape notice, that no definition of the nature and rights of citizens appears in the Constitution. The descriptive term is used, with a plain indication that its meaning is understood by all, and this indeed is the general character of the whole instrument. Except in one instance, it gives no definitions, but it acts in all its parts, on qualities and relations supposed to be already known.”
True, the well-educated men who drafted and approved the Constitution used language of which they already were well-informed. There was no need to define “natural-born citizen” because it was well-known that when used in the context of loyalty to a nation the phrase meant one born on the soil of a nation to parents who were citizens of that nation.
Contemporary legal sources confirm the understanding of people like future chief justice John Jay when he urged the Framers to admit to the executive leadership, and control of the military, none but one who, by virtue of birth and parentage, reasonably could be assumed to be loyal to the nation and its citizens.
No one disputes that the meaning of the term natural born citizen was understood by the Founders.
That is what makes Rawle’s description of its meaning a window on what they understood it to mean. If citizenship of the parents was so universally understood that is what Rawle would have written.
Rawles opinion in 1825 is just one opinion and is not determinative. Others said otherwise: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3301209/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Citizen-Meaning-to-Constitutional-Standards Natural Law and the founders and framers (and contributors by letter) and those who approved the new U.S. Constitution at the Constitutional Convention said being born a Citizen was not sufficient. See: The Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How of the “natural born Citizen” Term In Our United States Constitution: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf
Suggested by Alexander Hamilton – “Born a Citizen” (rejected)
Suggested by John Jay via letter to Washington – “Natural Born Citizen” (accepted)
Article II Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
and the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) and other cases did not agree with Rawles opinion: Article II Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html and Principles of Natural Law: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/
Hamilton’s suggestion came after the Convention. He even told Timothy Pickering that he submitted it several days after the Convention ended.
“Accordingly, it is a fact, that my final opinion was against an Executive during good behaviour, on account of the increased danger to the public tranquil[i]ty incident to the election of a Magistrate of this degree of permanency. In the plan of a Constitution, which I drew up, while the convention was sitting & which I communicated to Mr. Madison about the close of it, perhaps a day or two after, the Office of President has no greater duration than for three years.”
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0114
Hamilton was not at the Convention for all of July and all but one day in August.
Rawle’s writing and opinion in 1825 is not determinative. Other founders disagreed. David Ramsay is an example. And later writers did too.
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defined Natural Born Citizenship in 1789 – by Atty Mario Apuzzo: https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html
Natural-Born Citizen of United States Eligibility For Office of President-By Alexander Morse-1904: https://www.scribd.com/document/33806815/Natural-Born-Citizen-of-United-States-Eligibility-for-Office-of-President-by-Alexander-Morse-1904
Natural Born Citizen Within Meaning of Constitution by Breckenridge Long Democrat 1916: https://www.scribd.com/doc/68922032/Natural-Born-Citizen-Within-Meaning-of-Constitution-by-Breckenridge-Long-Democrat-1916
Citizenship Terms Used in The U.S. Constitution – The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference To Same: https://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
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/
Dr. Ramsay never uses the term natural born citizen. His 4th manner of acquiring citizenship is by birth or inheritance, not birth and inheritance.
“The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.”
This statement about citizenship was rejected by the US Congress in 1789.
Alexander Porter Morse said the Supreme Court had decided that a child born in the US to Chinese parents was eligible to be President.
Breckenridge Long was describing the case of Charles Evan Hughes who the Republican Party said was eligible.
Regarding the 1787 letter from John Jay, who became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, to George Washington, a key and influential founder and framer we all know, and who was the President of the Constitutional Convention, suggesting adding the “natural born Citizen” requirement into the presidential eligibility clause, see: Natural Born Citizen (Meaning) Synopsis by John Greschak on the subject of “What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States”: https://www.scribd.com/document/160067303/Natural-Born-Citizen-Meaning-Synopsis-by-John-Greschak
It was Greschak who also showed that the Founders used both terms natural born citizen and natural born subject interchangeably.
This 1791 act used both terms.
https://books.google.com/books?id=6nVEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA307&dq=an+act+for+naturalizing+john+white+and+others+1791&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyv4yX1I36AhVLLEQIHdRuCvAQuwV6BAgGEAc#v=onepage&q=an%20act%20for%20naturalizing%20john%20white%20and%20others%201791&f=false
Once again Mr. Fremick, please cite wherein “THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE” record of the debate on the 14th Amendment, specifically of course the citizenship clause thereof, Mr. William Rawle or his opinion is mentioned.
https://guides.loc.gov/14th-amendment/digital-collections
During the debates over the Civil Rights Act of 1866, James Wilson of Iowa cited the Rawle quote.
He starts with, “Blackstone says:
“The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.”
“The principle here laid down applies to this country as well as to England. It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, “founded in reason and nature of government.”
“The English law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural born subjects; nor does it do so in regard to naturalization. This law bound the colonies before the Revolution, and was not changed afterward.”
“The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural-born and naturalized citizens. It speaks of “natural-born” citizens, and also provides for the establishment of “a uniform rule of naturalization”by Congress. …”
Later in his speech, Congressman Wilson cites Rawle.
“It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term “citizen.” It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on out soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign governments, are native-born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” – Rawle on the Constitution. P. 80
Beginning on page 1115 of The Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session
https://books.google.com/books?id=9akIL0auL_0C&pg=PA1116&lpg=PA1116&dq=%22On+this+question+of+citizenship,+Mr.+Marcy,+while+he+was+Secretary+of+State,+in+a+note+dated+March+6,+1854,+expressed+himself+as+follows%22&source=bl&ots=MATAnYtJpU&sig=ACfU3U0r4M0DzyLYY0Knrc28UZ1thqjv6w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjH1puU8vz5AhWOkYkEHQ7bBoUQ6AF6BAgDEAI#v=onepage&q&f=false
During the Congressional debates on the 14th Amendment, Senator John Henderson of Missouri in a speech on the citizenship clause said,
“Rawle, in his work on the Constitution, page 86 uses the following language:”
“The citizens of each State constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertain to them as citizens of those respective Commonwealths accompanied them in the formation of the great compound Commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former: and he who was subsequently bom a citizen of a State became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States.”
This sentence in Rawle’s “A View of The Constitution of the United States” immediately precedes his famous quote on natural born citizens.
http://stafnelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment.pdf
During the Congressional debates on the 14th Amendment, Senator John Henderson of Missouri in a speech on the citizenship clause said,
“Rawle, in his work on the Constitution, page 86 uses the following language:”
“The citizens of each State constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertain to them as citizens of those respective Commonwealths accompanied them in the formation of the great compound Commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former: and he who was subsequently bom a citizen of a State became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States.”
This sentence in Rawle’s “A View of The Constitution of the United States” immediately precedes his famous quote on natural born citizens.
http://stafnelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment.pdf
QUESTION: IF – everyone born on US soil, its territories, or districts IS a natural born Citizen regardless of citizenship of parents, then why is the phrase “natural born” not included within the context of all current US citizenship/immigration laws?
ANSWER: Congress/Executive Branches have ZERO authority to make or deem anyone a natural born Citizen through positive (man-made) law. This duo can only declare someone a STATUTORY (US) citizen through constitutionally authorized citizenship laws.
A natural born Citizen is a citizen by/through the law of nature – born IN the country to two (2) parents who are already citizens of THAT country.
Heels up harris IS NOT ELIGIBLE just as fuhrer obama wasn’t eligible but the devildemocommiecrats and gop establishment seek the destruction of our republic so what our founders established has to be undone so they can “fundamentally transform” the USSA, a third world toilet puppet state of the new world order global dictatorship!!!!!!!!!!