Harris Eligibility Lawsuit Hearing Friday

by Sharon Rondeau

(Oct. 17, 2024) — On September 2, The Post & Email reported the filing by Montgomery Blair Sibley of a legal challenge in New York State to 2024 Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris’s eligibility to serve as president and commander-in-chief claiming she is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II, § 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

While controversy exists over the precise meaning of the term of art, some constitutional scholars believe the Founders intended the nation’s chief executive held to a higher standard than that of simply “citizen” as required for members of the U.S. House and Senate.

The same scholars, of which Sibley is one, argue that Article II’s “grandfather clause” — “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” — would not have been necessary if the two terms were interchangeable. The Founders’ intent, they say, was that the president have been born to parents who were already U.S. citizens, either by naturalization or birth within the country.

As Sibley related in his original complaint, Harris was born October 20, 1964 in Oakland, CA to parents who were in the U.S. on student visas, her mother having come from India and her father from Jamaica. They were therefore not U.S. citizens at the time of Kamala’s birth.

On page 4 of the complaint, Sibley wrote (paragraph numbers omitted):

The phrase “natural born Citizen” is an 18th Century legal term-of-art with a definite meaning well known to the Framers of the Constitution. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the phrase “natural born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (The Law of Nations, Emerich de Vattel, 1758, Chapter 19, § 212). Notably, in 1788 there were two requirements to be a “natural born Citizen”: born (i) in the United States and (ii) of two parents, both of whom must have been United States citizens at the time of the birth.

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, stating: “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.” (Farrand’s Records, Volume 3, LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington).

Subsequently, on August 22, 1787, it was proposed at the Constitutional Convention that the presidential qualifications were to be a “citizen of the United States.” (Farrand’s Records – Journal, Wednesday August 22, 1787). It was referred back to a Committee, and the qualification clause was changed to read “natural born Citizen,” and was so reported out of Committee on September 4, 1787, and thereafter adopted in the Constitution. (Farrand’s Records, Journal, Tuesday September 4, 1787)…

Therefore, the Article II, §1 “natural born Citizen” clause which only pertains to the requirement for holding the highest public office requires both parents to be U.S. Citizens at the time of birth. Thus, as a matter of law, Kamala Iyer Harris is ineligible to be President as neither of her parents were U.S. Citizens at the time of her birth.

Accordingly, upon the law and facts, Kamala Iyer Harris is not a “natural born Citizen” and thus is ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States.

“Iyer” was Harris’s original middle name, shortly thereafter changed to “Devi.”

According to all available evidence, Shyamala Gopalan Harris never became a U.S. citizen; Kamala’s father, Donald Jasper Harris, naturalized in 1981, approximately 17 years after her birth.

A Schuyler County resident, Sibley filed his complaint against New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE) Co-Executive Director Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky in August at the Sixth Judicial District, a division of the state supreme court which, unlike in other states, is not the state’s highest court.

Judge Christopher P. Baker issued an order of dismissal without oral argument which Sibley challenged, after which Baker’s clerk scheduled a hearing for Thursday, August 29.

Following the hearing, Sibley told The Post & Email, “As I expected, the Judge refused to vacate his dismissal order. Now I will file my notice of appeal on Tuesday and prepare an emergency petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. I hope to have that filed by September 7. Then the question of Kamala Harris’ eligibility will be in front of them.”

The next day, Sibley appealed to the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division in the Third Judicial Department and was granted a hearing for Friday, October 18 after filing a Motion to Expedite.

Sibley also filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court with a Rule 22 Application, writing:

Petitioner, Montgomery Blair Sibley (“Sibley”), pursuant to Rule 22 of this Court and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651(a), requests an Order directing the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court to file Sibley’s Petition for Certiorari which was refused for filing by the Clerk on September 19, 2024.

Such an Order from this honorable Court is necessary because the issues raised are of imperative public importance so as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and procedure and to require immediate determination in this Court.

That Petition raised the important question of whether Vice President Kamala Harris is a “natural born Citizen” as that term is used in Article II, §1 and thus eligible to be President of the United States. Given the obvious pressing need for prompt resolution of the question presented, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court direct the Clerk to file Sibley’s Petition and thereafter grant Sibley’s Motion to Expedite.

On September 24, Sibley reported on his Substack:

The USPS tells me that on September 9, 2024, my Petition for Certiorari was delivered to the United States Supreme Court. Later that week, I spoke with a Deputy Clerk who told me that the Petition was “under review”. A suspiciously long ten (10) days of review resulted in a September 19th letter from the Clerk of the Supreme Court to me which stated that the Clerk was refusing to file the Petition because the Supreme Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.

I understood when I filed the Petition that the subject matter jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain my Petition was a close call. Hence, I included that as the first issue in the Petition for the Justices to decide.

As of Wednesday, Sibley told us, “the supreme court has not even filed my Rule 22 Application let alone answer my telephone messages inquiring about the delay in filing. So yes, it seems the Supreme Court is ignoring me as the only way to avoid the problem my lawsuit is causing.”

On behalf of Zebrowski Stavitsky, the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a response to Sibley’s appeal on September 30, writing,

According to plaintiff, Ms. Harris is ineligible to serve as President because she is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. Supreme Court, Schuyler County (Baker, J.), dismissed the complaint because plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in the Election Law.

This Court should affirm. As Supreme Court held, the exclusive remedy for removing a candidate from a ballot is a special proceeding commenced pursuant to the Election Law. Plaintiff did not commence such a proceeding. Nor did he file an objection with the State Board of Elections, as required before commencing a special proceeding. Thus, plaintiff lacks standing to challenge Ms. Harris’s placement on the ballot under the Election Law. Plaintiff also lacks standing to assert a federal constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he has not alleged any concrete and particularized injury arising from Ms. Harris’s candidacy. Supreme Court therefore correctly dismissed the complaint.

Friday’s hearing will be held during the 9:30 a.m. session, with Sibley’s case being the eighth in a list of 15, and livestreamed here.