Kamela Harris is Not Eligible to Become President

Run a search on that decision for "natural born citizen" and "natural-born citizen" and post the results. My browser comes up empty

 

Explain why this was necessary:
S.Res. 511 (110th): A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.




110th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. RES. 511

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 10, 2008

Mrs. McCaskill (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Obama, Mr. Coburn, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Webb) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

April 24, 2008

Reported by Mr. Leahy, without amendment

April 30, 2008

Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a natural born Citizen of the United States;

Whereas the term natural born Citizen, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the natural born Citizen clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term natural born Citizen;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

That John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text

McCain's parents were both US citizens living on a US military base when he was born. Based on the 1790 nationality act, he could be a natural born citizen. 5 years later that act was repealed and its replacement just said he would be born a citizen, not a natural born citizen, which would make him ineligible.

Even they did a slight of hand by referencing a law that was repealed and replaced with something that didn't suit their purpose.

 

In 2000, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in one of its reports, wrote that most constitutional scholars interpret the natural-born-citizen clause to include citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected president.[81]

This opinion was reaffirmed in a 2009 CRS report, which stated:

Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth".[82]

The interpretation of natural born being the equivalent of a citizen at birth was repeated in a 2011 CRS report and a 2016 CRS report. The 2011 report stated:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth," either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[3]

The 2016 report similarly stated:

Although the eligibility of U.S. born citizens has been settled law for more than a century, there have been legitimate legal issues raised concerning those born outside of the country to U.S. citizens. From historical material and case law, it appears that the common understanding of the term "natural born" in England and in the American colonies in the 1700s included both the strict common law meaning as born in the territory (jus soli), as well as the statutory laws adopted in England since at least 1350, which included children born abroad to British fathers (jus sanguinis, the law of descent). Legal scholars in the field of citizenship have asserted that this common understanding and legal meaning in England and in the American colonies was incorporated into the usage and intent of the term in the U.S. Constitution to include those who are citizens at birth.[59]

 

The Lynch case was also cited as a leading precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (189,[53] which similarly held a child born in the United States of two Chinese parents became "at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States". Similarly, in a 1999 Circuit Court decision, the U.S.-born children of two non-citizen parents were spoken of as "natural born citizens".

 

Or you could actually read the opinion. The effect of the opinion is clear.

 

You only think this is suspect because you are starting from the assumption that there is a difference between a natural born citizen and someone who is a citizen by natural birth. And here we have Congress recognizing that there is no such distinction. All Congress is doing here is passing a resolution recognizing that.

 

What does the text in bold mean to you?

Anything after 2007 can be interpreted as an attempt to inoculate the first African American President. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed in 1795 and replaced with Naturalization Act of 1795, which said those people were citizens, not natural born citizens as stipulated in Article II Section 1.

All the evidence points to the founders wanting to prevent people who might have dual allegiances from becoming President. This is a letter on the subject from John Jay to George Washington as the Constitution was being written --- motivating the natural born citizen clause:
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay

New York 25 July 1787

Dear Sir

I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet, which sailed Yesterday.

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt

John Jay

 

The opinion says nothing about the term "natural born citizen" which is not addressed in the opinion.

My point is simple. The Constitution is very clear that a requirement for President is that he/she be a natural born citizen. We know that the criteria for being a natural born citizen is that his/her parents be citizens at the time of his/her birth in the United States. The only ambiguity is that the term is not explicitly defined in the Constitution.

That ambiguity can be fixed explicitly or we can continue to play fast and loose, defining the law any way that's convenient to one side or the other.

Look around the country today. Do you think lawlessness is good for the country ,,, that mayors look the other way when terrorists burn their town, but they fine people sitting in their cars in a Church parking lot listening to a sermon on their car radios --- because they can twist their laws any way they want?

 

Good so far.

We know no such thing. That is your assertion, and one that doesn't really play a role in how our country actually works.

Then you should understand this means that your previous statement is incorrect.

 

I've provided you with all the evidence available that paints the picture, clearly supporting my position. You've provided nothing to support your position. Since I like Kamala as the oppo VP candidate, I think we should just agree to disagree and call it another 4 for the Trumpster.

 

You've provided one book and have ignored other contemporary writings. All of your arguments start from the assumption that this is a third class of citizenship. The courts have, for good reason, found otherwise.

 

Nevertheless, Donald Trump could not have picked a better running mate for Biden than Kamala Harris. Harris has already beaten the racist snot out of Biden during the DP debates.

 

That's not what I remember reading about SCOTUS decisions on the subject. There are only 2 types of citizens: those who got it by birth and those who got it through a govt process.

 

Live from the Biden-Harris Circus. Kamala Harris is being sued for targeting the filmmaker that exposed Planned Parenthood for illegally harvesting and peddling baby body parts. Pass the popcorn.

 

Kamala Harris's political history amounts to a long series of pro-Trump ads.

"Piscitelli had met with Hallinan’s office to discuss his case and the ongoing investigation into the church. But, he said, when Harris took over, his access to the office was shut off and his requests for clergy abuse files were ignored. Piscitelli resorted to handing out flyers and picketing outside the district attorney’s office on San Francisco’s McAllister Street."

"Dominic De Lucca, a Burlingame, California, resident who says he was raped by a local priest when he was 12 years old, also said he was shocked that Harris declined to aggressively pursue clergy abuse cases and refused to release the files. “I remember Kamala Harris,” said De Lucca. “She didn’t want to have any meetings.” He went on, “She wanted the public to think this is an issue that happened years ago, that it doesn’t happen anymore. Let’s just move on.”
THE INTERCEPT, AS SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY, KAMALA HARRIS’S OFFICE STOPPED COOPERATING WITH VICTIMS OF CATHOLIC CHURCH CHILD ABUSE, Lee Fang, June 9 2019.
https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/kamala-harris-san-francisco-catholic-church-child-abuse/

 

"The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.'"

***

"The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words 'citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States.'"

***

"The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution."

***

"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."

***

"Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."

I have now spoon fed you the pertinent parts of the case. You're welcome.

 

He's a wacko.

And that's on his good days.

 

Birtherism only pops up for Black candidates.

Never for White guys like McCain.

The law is quite clear, and the arguments are quite crap.

Racism.

 

It popped up for McCain and for Agnew. A resolution cleared up the McCain situation since he was born to two American citizens serving at a US military base.
For Agnew, it wasn't clear that his father was naturalized before Spiro's birth since he changed his name when he moved to the US. Both parents were confirmed to be US citizens when Spiro was born.
Obama's father never set foot on US soil, was a foreigner.
No one cares about Kamala since the only way she ends up in the WH is if she goes on a tour.
Aside from those who couldn't be NBC's carved out in the text of the Constitution, Chester A. Arthur is the only President that snuck through by hiding his roots and Obama was given a pass on eligibility because he's a Democrat.

 

Obama was "given a pass" because his mother was an American and he was born and raised on American soil.
And you lied about Obama's father never setting foot on American soil - Obama's father and mother MET at the University of Hawaii, and lived there for three years. Obama Sr. also spent time as a grad student at Harvard.

 

Dems didn't try and make a big deal out of it. The ones I remember scoffed at the idea.

You can say they don't care, but they're doing the Birther rant and lying their ass off about her in other ways, as well.

That must be a definition of indifference I hadn't previously encountered..