Kamala Harris Is Not Eligible to Be Vice-President of the United States

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,509
12,929
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's all settled constitutional law, what a natural born citizen of the United States is.

What year and Law (stature and number) was it all settled?

Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California.

Uh huh.
Her father, Nationality Jamaican.
Her mother, Nationality East Indian

Kamala, Nationality US American citizen
BY birthright: she could acquire citizenship:
1) as Jamaican, via father
2) as East Indian, via mother
3) 14th Amend. (If she is domiciled in the US and Subject TO US Laws)

So what is her citizenship status?
Jamaican, East Indian, US American Citizen?

Or are you eventually questioning Ted Cruz's citizenship, because he was born in Calgary, Canada?

NOT eventually. But at the time he was making a Presidental run? Yes.
Teds Birth: Canada
Father: Nationality Cuban
Mother: Nationality American

So what is Teds Citizenship status?
Canadian? Cuban? American?

Jesus' earthly parents were Joseph and Mary. But Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, so your attempted analogy of Biblical principles fails.

Jesus' LEGAL parents:
BY Roman Law
BY Jewish Law

Joseph, Mary, Jesus all born in Roman Lands Jurisdiction...Subject TO Roman Laws, but none were Roman citizens.

Their citizenship's were determined by Jewish Law. Children of Jewish parents were Lawfully Jewish Citizens.

Paul's mother was a Jewish citizen.
Paul's Father was a Roman citizen.
Paul was a Jewish citizen AND a Roman citizen.

The "natural born citizenship" clause, was Expressly for the intent to establish an Allegience History.

A man and a woman having an established history of Allegience to America...and producing an offspring...and raises that child in Allegience to America...gives credence to that child's ideals being favoring to American ideals, rather that ideals and welfare of a child's foreign citizenships of multiple flavors.

It is man's nature to be family orintated.
If ones family is mixed in Allegiences...
and you seat that person in an American Lawmaking position...
Really? You don't KNOW that person has a Divided interest?

So can you answer:
What is Kamala's citizenship status?

Glory to God,
Taken
 

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,509
12,929
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Courts have ruled for a long time that being born inside the US is enough to make someone a citizen. Even children, if born in the US, of illegal aliens are considered citizens. Children born to foreign diplomats are not, since they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

So?
It is NOT Citizenship being questioned...
It is "natural born Citizenship" in question.

Glory to God,
Taken
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's all settled constitutional law, Taken, what a natural born citizen of the United States is. Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California. Or are you eventually questioning Ted Cruz's citizenship, because he was born in Calgary, Canada?

Jesus' earthly parents were Joseph and Mary. But Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, so your attempted analogy of Biblical principles fails.
Really! What is the controversy? Can't Republicans come up with better things to argue about?
 

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,509
12,929
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Really! What is the controversy?

Allegience.

Can't Republicans come up with better things to argue about?

Really? Does Fact finding OF Truth mean arguing...so it should be avoided?

You post a Hollymud actors whining about Devastation in Iowa as if people should consider that actors whining to Make a consideration whether or not to vote for Trump.

Really? Is that how you make determinations for a Presidental Election of WHO to vote for?

Shallow at best. UGH!

Glory to God,
Taken
 

bukka

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2020
563
443
63
Western North America
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What year and Law (stature and number) was it all settled?


8 US Code sec. 1401.

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The title notes give more links that provide the further texts and dates that buttress the code.

Uh huh.
Her father, Nationality Jamaican.
Her mother, Nationality East Indian

Kamala, Nationality US American citizen
BY birthright: she could acquire citizenship:
1) as Jamaican, via father
2) as East Indian, via mother
3) 14th Amend. (If she is domiciled in the US and Subject TO US Laws)

So what is her citizenship status?
Jamaican, East Indian, US American Citizen?

Kamala Harris parents were already naturalized American citizens. Kamala Harris is, for statutory reasons, an American citizen.

NOT eventually. But at the time he was making a Presidental run? Yes.
Teds Birth: Canada
Father: Nationality Cuban
Mother: Nationality American

So what is Teds Citizenship status?
Canadian? Cuban? American?

Ted Cruz is an American citizen for the same statutory reasons as Kamala Harris.

Jesus' LEGAL parents:
BY Roman Law
BY Jewish Law

Joseph, Mary, Jesus all born in Roman Lands Jurisdiction...Subject TO Roman Laws, but none were Roman citizens.

Their citizenship's were determined by Jewish Law. Children of Jewish parents were Lawfully Jewish Citizens.

Paul's mother was a Jewish citizen.
Paul's Father was a Roman citizen.
Paul was a Jewish citizen AND a Roman citizen.

Agreed

The "natural born citizenship" clause, was Expressly for the intent to establish an Allegience History.

Unsupported assertion. This is not supported by 8 US Code sec. 1401.

A man and a woman having an established history of Allegience to America...and producing an offspring...and raises that child in Allegience to America...gives credence to that child's ideals being favoring to American ideals, rather that ideals and welfare of a child's foreign citizenships of multiple flavors.

It is man's nature to be family orintated.
If ones family is mixed in Allegiences...
and you seat that person in an American Lawmaking position...
Really? You don't KNOW that person has a Divided interest?

Unsupported assertions. Citizenship based upon perceived allegiences is based upon politics merely and would void any meaning attached to the Bill of Rights. Civil rights would only exist for those who agree with the politics of the moment, only to be lost at a later time. This doesn't exist in American statutory law.

So can you answer:
What is Kamala's citizenship status?
. . .

Kamala Harris is an American citizen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Giuliano

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,509
12,929
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
8 US Code sec. 1401.

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The title notes give more links that provide the further texts and dates that buttress the code.



Kamala Harris parents were already naturalized American citizens. Kamala Harris is, for statutory reasons, an American citizen.



Ted Cruz is an American citizen for the same statutory reasons as Kamala Harris.



Agreed


Unsupported assertion. This is not supported by 8 US Code sec. 1401.
Unsupported assertions. Citizenship based upon perceived allegiences is based upon politics merely and would void any meaning attached to the Bill of Rights. Civil rights would only exist for those who agree with the politics of the moment, only to be lost at a later time. This doesn't exist in American statutory law.

Kamala Harris is an American citizen.

A duel citizen? A 14th amendment citizen?

However it is having the status of natural born citizenship that qualifies one for P or VP.

And no doubt Citizenship laws have been changed and changed for political reaching.
 
Last edited:

bukka

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2020
563
443
63
Western North America
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A duel citizen? A 14th amendment citizen?

However it is having the status of natural born citizenship that qualifies one for P or VP.

And no doubt Citizenship laws have been changed and changed for political reaching.

????? The statute is clear to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Giuliano

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,509
12,929
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
????? The statute is clear to me.

The statute does not mention natural born citizen., but the Constitution does.
^
That only applies to Pres and VP.

What makes that kind of citizen different?

How do you determine natural born citizenship?
 

bukka

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2020
563
443
63
Western North America
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The statute does not mention natural born citizen., but the Constitution does.
^
That only applies to Pres and VP.

Kamala Harris is running for VP.

What makes that kind of citizen different?

That is something for you to prove if you believe that Kamala Harris is not eligible to be VP.

How do you determine natural born citizenship?

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

Enough of these questions, Taken. If Kamala Harris is not eligible to be VP prove it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Giuliano

bukka

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2020
563
443
63
Western North America
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Is anything that simple? What about "alternative facts"?


I think, Giuliano, that alternative facts point to that "win at all costs" mentality that allows for the situation ethics that permits all things when the unwelcome truth gets in the way. Given this development of situation ethics in modern day politics, the Christian church, or at least by many who say that they are Christians, points to the deep erosion of faith that is most troubling, given that Christians are commanded to worship in spirit and in truth.

In a sense, concerning this thread, on one level, it's no longer about Kamala Harris, or who she is, actually as a person. It's about the spiritual emptiness of those that have embraced situation ethics. For them, political and religious power is the only thing that has meaning. It doesn't matter what the Constitution says, or the US Code says, or even what the Bible says. And in the end there can only be a fiery hatred of the lost for others, because the spiritual emptiness of the lost brings about its own condemnation and destruction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Giuliano

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think, Giuliano, that alternative facts point to that "win at all costs" mentality that allows for the situation ethics that permits all things when the unwelcome truth gets in the way. Given this development of situation ethics in modern day politics, the Christian church, or at least by many who say that they are Christians, points to the deep erosion of faith that is most troubling, given that Christians are commanded to worship in spirit and in truth.

In a sense, concerning this thread, on one level, it's no longer about Kamala Harris, or who she is, actually as a person. It's about the spiritual emptiness of those that have embraced situation ethics. For them, political and religious power is the only thing that has meaning. It doesn't matter what the Constitution says, or the US Code says, or even what the Bible says. And in the end there can only be a fiery hatred of the lost for others, because the spiritual emptiness of the lost brings about its own condemnation and destruction.
This kind of recklessness with the truth erodes people's trust. A rather high percentage of Republicans don't believe Trump about coronavirus. I think it's high.

Most Republicans don't trust Fauci or CDC's COVID advice—but nearly 70% believe Trump: poll

Fifty-two percent of Republicans said they don't trust what the CDC has said about the novel virus, and 53 percent said they don't trust Fauci, who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and is a member of the White House coronavirus task force.

In comparison, 69 percent of Republicans said they trust what Trump has said about the coronavirus, while 22 percent said they don't trust the president.

That's pretty sad if you ask me. Of course, more Democrats don't believe him.

Among Democrats, the poll found a large majority said they don't trust Trump for advice on the virus but do trust Fauci and the CDC. According to the poll, 93 percent of Democrats said they don't trust the president, while 78 percent said they trust Fauci and 76 percent said they trust the CDC.

Throw in the independents to get the overall picture:

Among all respondents, 31 percent said they trust Trump for advice on the virus, 51 percent said they trust Fauci, and 55 percent said they trust the CDC. By comparison, 58 percent said they don't trust what Trump has said about the virus, 29 percent said they don't trust Fauci, and 32 percent said they don't trust the CDC.
The people in the alt-right have wrecked their own credibility. Lance Wallnau, who started the comparison of Trump with Cyrus and said Trump is anointed by God, now shared his theory about Harris. How do people make this stuff up? Maybe I shouldn't have laughed about it, but this video was so outlandish it made me laugh.

 
  • Like
Reactions: bukka

bukka

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2020
563
443
63
Western North America
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I ask myself, Giuliano, why are intelligent, independent women feared so much, I wonder? I hate to be speaking like my father, but is there any real manhood left on the part of many men? Why are there so few men men who are intelligent and strong enough to deal with a woman that is their equal in strength and intelligence? Perhaps, it is, in the end, that only few men, among the many, are strong. I suspect many men feel threatened by a woman like Kamala Harris. It's all so very disappointing.

False prophets like Lance Wallnau cannot give strength to those who are devoted to him. He can only weaken and betray them, which is the penalty for following false prophets.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Giuliano

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,509
12,929
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Kamala Harris is running for VP.



That is something for you to prove if you believe that Kamala Harris is not eligible to be VP.



8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

Enough of these questions, Taken. If Kamala Harris is not eligible to be VP prove it.

It apparently is a non issue with you whether or not eligibility is met, when you can deflect to fear and hate that no one has mentioned but you, and when more pressing matters, like a the size of a crowd is big news.
Sad!
 

bukka

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2020
563
443
63
Western North America
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It apparently is a non issue with you whether or not eligibility is met, when you can deflect to fear and hate that no one has mentioned but you, and when more pressing matters, like a the size of a crowd is big news.
Sad!

If Kamala Harris is not eligible to be VP, please tell me why it is so. I'll be happy to hear your proof and see if it can bear close examination. Such a proof, if it exists, would undoubtedly be something that is very recent and highly important. It would reflect a change in statutory law qualifying birthright citizenship. I would have to wonder why the US Code was not changed to reflect that qualification to birthright citizenship. That would need to be explained as well. Theological arguments will not cut it here. The arguments must exist in the law itself, if not in the statutes, at least in the references and the appended documents.

I've seen some astonishing, cutting-edge arguments in forums, and there is no reason, that I can foreclose on this, denying that such a proof exists in this case. I can acknowledge that you can be quite effective when you go into argumentation. But I have to see the developed argument that allows for me to see the needed proof to come to any final judgement on this. At this point, I can't see how Kamala Harris in ineligible for the Vice Presidency. The statute, as it exists, is very clear to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Giuliano

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,509
12,929
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If Kamala Harris is not eligible to be VP, please tell me why it is so. I'll be happy to hear your proof and see if it can bear close examination. Such a proof, if it exists, would undoubtedly be something that is very recent and highly important. It would reflect a change in statutory law qualifying birthright citizenship. I would have to wonder why the US Code was not changed to reflect that qualification to birthright citizenship. That would need to be explained as well. Theological arguments will not cut it here. The arguments must exist in the law itself, if not in the statutes, at least in the references and the appended documents.

I've seen some astonishing, cutting-edge arguments in forums, and there is no reason, that I can foreclose on this, denying that such a proof exists in this case. I can acknowledge that you can be quite effective when you go into argumentation. But I have to see the developed argument that allows for me to see the needed proof to come to any final judgement on this. At this point, I can't see how Kamala Harris in ineligible for the Vice Presidency. The statute, as it exists, is very clear to me.

I don't have an argument, same as you do not.

I have a concern, when an individual wants to sit in the Highest American Office and has close personal family ties to foreign countries.

I have not done an indepth research on her regarding foreign laws that affect her because of her foreign Born parents birth-rights.
You know, like Obama's foreign born father, retaining his Kenyan citizenship and Kenyan Law that Obama had Kenyan Citizenship through his father's rights? Surely you did your homework right? Surely you don't think a natural born citizen means duel citizen...Do you?

You mentioned a US Law, that addressed her being a citizen. That evaded the point of her being a Natural Born Citizen as required by the US Constitution....thus you had no argument of proof of her eligibility.

I have no need to prove anything to you and you the same.
Then you take the dirty-dog approach... implying and infusing what has zero to do with anything ... That to have a concern about her eligibility hinges on Fear and Hate...

Why don't you prove your comments on Fear and Hate? And How it relates to lawful eligibility to sit in the People's House?
 

Guestman

Active Member
Nov 11, 2009
618
72
28
70
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The political arena (that came into existence with Nimrod over 4,000 years ago, who was " mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah", Gen 10:9) has always been a "force for divisiveness", with political parties competing with or fighting against each other to the nation's detriment, whereby "democratic lands" are trying to "reroute" what their constitution means in their favor.

But how many have examined the Bible carefully so as to be able to comprehend that the world of politics is the creation of God's archenemy - "the dragon" - or Satan the Devil ?(Rev 12:9) How many have unbiasedly read Bible accounts such as Daniel 7, whereby Daniel describes four political powers that had a direct impact on God's people ?(Note: Gods' personal name is Jehovah, Ex 6:3; Ps 83:18 in the King James Bible)

Daniel sees four political world powers as "beasts": "I was watching in my visions during the night, and look ! the four winds of the heavens (or from all four directions of N, S, E, W of the earth) were stirring up the vast sea (or restless, radical elements of mankind, see Isa 17:12; Isa 57:20, 21). And four huge beasts came out of the sea (of radical mankind), each different (in political structure) from the others".(Dan 7:2, 3; Note: the "four huge beasts" were, in order, ancient Babylon [ruled from 632-539 B.C.E.], Medo-Persia [ruled from 539-331 B.C.E.], Greece [ruled from 331-30 B.C.E.] and Rome [ruled from 30 B.C.E to 476 C.E.])

At Isaiah 30, it states: "Woe to the stubborn sons (or nation of Israel who became apostate, Isa 10:6)", declares Jehovah, "who carry out plans that are not mine, who make alliances, but not by my spirit, in order to add sin to sin. They go down to Egypt (being south of the nation of Israel) without consulting me, to take (political) shelter under Pharaoh's protection and to take refuge in the shadow of Egypt. But the protection of Pharaoh will become for you a reason for shame and refuge in Egypt's shadow (like a person wanting to be shielded from the hot sun, to receive protection from other enemy political powers or governments, such as Syria or Assyria; see Isa 10:12; 30:31; 2 Kings 6:8) a cause for humiliation.....They (or those who place their trust in the political system despite saying that they are "Christian") will all be put to shame by a people (or political governments) who can bring no benefit to them, who offer no help and no benefit, only shame and disgrace".(Isa 30:1-3, 5)

Thus Jehovah now says at Isaiah 30:6: "A pronouncement (Hebrew massa' meaning "a burden.....chiefly a doom", Strong's Exhaustive Concordance) against the beasts of the south (Egypt and Ethiopia)......For Egypt's help is completely useless" (to the nation of Israel who looked for a political solution for their "problems" rather than Jehovah God), for Isaiah 30:9-11 says: "For they are a rebellious people, deceitful sons, sons who are unwilling to hear the law of Jehovah. They say to the seers, ' Do not see, and to the visionaries, ' Do not tell us tell us truthful visions. Tell us flattering things; envision deceptive illusions. Turn aside from the way (of what is right and wrong in Jehovah's eyes, of trusting in him); Quit putting before us the Holy One of Israel (or Jehovah God)"

At Isaiah 30:12-14, Jehovah now tells the apostate nation of Israel who trusted in political "solutions" to their "difficult situations": "Therefore this is what the Holy One of Israel says: "Since you reject this word (or "law of Jehovah", see Amos 2:4, 5) and you trust in fraud and deceit and you rely on these (or political resolutions that is "fraud and deceit") so this error (of relying on political "answers") will be for you like broken wall, like a bulging wall ready to fall. It will crash suddenly, in an instant. It will be broken like a large potter's jar, so completely smashed that no fragment among its pieces will be left to rake the fire from the fireplace or to scoop water from a puddle".

This establishes that following the "political trail" for a way out of their problems will only bring "shame and disgrace". At Revelation 13, it details that the political system is the creation of "the dragon", being manipulated by him, saying: "And it ("the dragon", Rev 12:17) stood on the sand of the sea (or the restless, radical elements of mankind bent on ruling themselves apart from Jehovah God, creating their own governmental systems instead of a theocracy or rule by Jehovah God). And I saw a wild beast (or all political governments combined as one "wild beast" that wants to tear apart anyone who challenges its sovereignty, like a wild beast such as a lion) ascending out of the sea, with ten horns (ten meaning earthly completeness, such as the Ten Plagues on Egypt that completed God's acts of justice against it, Ex 12:12) and seven heads (with seven meaning completeness within itself, be it heavenly or earthly, bringing to an end what is needed to finish Jehovah's purpose at that time, see Rev 10:7; Jos 6:15, 16)......Now the wild beast that I (John) saw was like a leopard, but its feet were like those of a bear, and its mouth was like a lion's mouth (or the animals of three of the "beasts" at Dan 7:1-6 combined as one). And the dragon (or Satan the Devil, Rev 12:9) gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority".(Rev 13:1, 2)

So, all political governments or "the wild beast" is the handiwork of Satan the Devil, and of which Revelation 13:3, 4 says that "all the earth followed the wild beast (or each respective nation with their own governmental structure, from Democracy [the United States] to Socialism [Cuba] to Nazisim [former Germany such as during the 1930s] to Communism [North Korea] to Monarchy [The United Kingdom], etc) with admiration. And they worshipped the dragon because it gave authority to the wild beast, and they worshipped the wild beast with the words: "Who is like the wild beast, and who can do battle with it ?", so that the divisive or hateful force of nationalism continues to do its "dirty work".

Hence, when a person is in any way attached to the political system, from outright campaigning to voting to even having any feelings for it, they are worshipping Satan the Devil. Revelation 13:16-18 states that the political "wild beast" "puts under compulsion (through its laws or by police force at times) all people - the small and the great, the rich and the poor, the free and the slaves - that these should be (symbolically) marked on their right hand (such as in giving political support by means of running of office, voting, campaigning for others, etc) or on their forehead (as in giving mental or emotional support) and that nobody can buy or sell except a person having the mark (or supporting the political system), the name of the wild beast or the number of its name. This is where it calls for wisdom (or deep insight to figure out): Let the one who has insight calculate the number of the wild beast, for it is a man's number (or imperfect), and its number is 666 (or three times short of seven that means total perfection or completeness, emphasizing it being deeply flawed, unable to bring "salvation" to its citizens)".

Thus, placing any trust, yes any trust in the political "wild beast" or political system rather than in Jehovah God is ' adding sin to sin ', for it is diametrically opposed to Jehovah God, and in which Jesus said: "Every plant that my Father (Jehovah God) did not plant will be uprooted" or destroyed.(Matt 15:13; Dan 2:44; see also Isa 26:3, 4 whereby ' the strong city [of symbolic New Jerusalem that comprises God's Kingdom of 144,000 [ along with one more or Jesus Christ as the primary king and priest] who are selected from the earth, Rev 14:1-3] fully lean on Jehovah God or trust in him forever ')

At Isaiah 30:15, Jehovah says: "For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, says: "By returning to me and resting, you will be saved".
 

Bobby Jo

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2019
8,041
3,778
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
... (Dan 7:2, 3; Note: the "four huge beasts" were, in order, ancient Babylon [ruled from 632-539 B.C.E.], Medo-Persia [ruled from 539-331 B.C.E.], Greece [ruled from 331-30 B.C.E.] and Rome [ruled from 30 B.C.E to 476 C.E.]) ...

1. Daniel 2:41 call the empire of Clay a "Divided Kingdom"; and 2:45 says 4,3,5,2,1 = FIVE world empires.
So the Dan. 7 depiction represents the "Divided Kingdom" THREE SUPERPOWERS and the United Nations.

2. Your "ten horns"/"ten plagues" is FALSE.

3. Your "mark on the hand" is NOT "symbolic" and the 666 is an IDENTIFICATION method for the a/c.

4. Don't trust the Jehovah's Witness Organization to lead to you ANY truth.

Bobby Jo
 

rjs330

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2020
347
350
63
64
Belgrade
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
... and the Supreme Court never makes a bad decision?

Not in any particular order:

  • Dred Scott -- Ruling black people aren't citizens.
  • Plessy v. Ferguson -- Allowing separate-but-equal.
  • Buck v. Bell -- Permitting compulsory sterilization.
  • Korematsu v. United States -- Upholding Japanese internment camps.
  • Helvering v. Davis -- Upheld the constitutionality of Social Security on the basis that Congress has a general power to spend on whatever it deems to be in the general welfare.
  • United States v. Cruikshank -- Eviscerated the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, preventing the Amendment from broadly protecting individual rights to this day.
  • Chae Chan Ping v. United States -- Upheld the Chinese Exclusion Act on the basis that Congress has an inherent power to restrict migration into the United States, despite Congress not actually being enumerated this power.
  • Hans v. Louisiana -- Declared that the symbolic meaning of the 11th Amendment prevents citizens from suing their states, even though the text makes no such reference, and thus inadvertently damaged the 4th Amendment by foreclosing the most effective means of enforcing it.
  • Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell -- Allowed states to alter banking contracts after the fact and thus effectively eliminated most of the Contracts Clause that prevents states from impairing private contractual obligations.
  • United States v. Carolene Products / Williamson v. Lee Optical -- Removed virtually all protection for unenumerated rights, particularly economic liberties, and granted the government nearly unlimited power to blatantly and unambiguously promote special interests at the expense of the public.
  • Wickard v. Filburn / Gonzales v. Raich -- Allowed Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce to be used to regulate purely local and essentially non-commercial activities, and thus empowered Congress to regulate essentially anything it wants.
  • Baker v. Carr -- Declared that a “One Person, One Vote” standard is essential to democracy, despite the fact that the Constitution doesn't follow OPOV in elections for the Senate or the presidency; facilitated gerrymandering by requiring every state to redo its districts every census to comply with OPOV.
  • Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. / Runyon v. McCrary -- Declared that Congress's power to ban slavery includes a broad power to ban virtually anything that could conceivably be deemed discriminatory, including private individuals refusing to sell private houses or admit students to private schools based on race, and thus transformed the power to stop slavery into a broad power to restrict private and voluntary choices.
  • Buckley v. Valeo -- Granted broad deference to Congress on campaign finance restrictions that limit political speech, despite the 1st Amendment's core protection being for political speech.
  • Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. -- Granted administrative agencies broad deference in creating regulations based on administrative interpretations of laws and thus granted administrative agencies of the executive branch broad lawmaking powers.
  • McCleskey v. Kemp -- Declared that Georgia's application of the death penalty did not violate its victims' Equal Protection rights, despite admitting that racism played a substantial role in determining who received the death penalty and, by implication, insulated the entire criminal justice system from any obligation not to be discriminatory in effect or operation.
  • Morrison v. Olson -- Allowed Congress to create an independent counsel with the power to investigate and prosecute people independent of the president, even though the president is vested with executive power, and prosecutions are purely executive powers.
  • Kelo v. City of New London -- Declared that using the power of eminent domain to take property from poorer people and give the property to large corporations (who pay more taxes) to be a "public use" under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.
  • NFIB v. Sebelius -- Allowed Congress to force people to buy health insurance from private companies on the basis of the regulation being a “tax,” by implication allowing Congress do virtually anything with the taxing power that no independent power, even the expansive Commerce Clause, would allow.
https: // fee.org/articles/15-supreme-court-decisions-that-shredded-the-constitution/​

You might as well roll the dice to see what the Justices rule on, because it's often as not THE CONSTITUTION. And this doesn't begin to address the unconstitutional actions which our various Government Agencies have decreed.

Bobby Jo

While I whole heartedly agree with you concerning some of the decisions of the Supreme Court they have made a decision on this particular issue. Personally I do not believe that babies born of illegal aliens should be citizens. I don't believe the Constitution authorizes that. But the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution that way. So we are stuck with it at this point.
As long as Harris was born in the US she IS a US citizen as ruled.
She is a pretty radical person with anti-Christian beliefs and very leftist philosophies. Which doesn't surprise me at all. She is also a huge hypocrite with a hunger for power. She accused Biden of being a racist and also said she believes his accusers regarding assault. But now all is forgiven now that she was invited as a VP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bobby Jo

aspen

“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Apr 25, 2012
14,111
4,778
113
52
West Coast
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Senator Kamala Harris is not, from a constitutional standpoint, a natural-born citizen of the United States. She was born on American soil, but that’s not enough to qualify for birthright citizenship. Here is the actual language of the 14th Amendment (emphasis mine throughout):“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.” It’s not enough just to be born on U.S. soil. You must both be born on U.S. soil and be subject “to the jurisdiction thereof” when it happens.

It’s not even enough that one’s parents be legally present in the U.S. at the time of the child’s birth. The issue is to whom do the parents - and therefore the child - owe their ultimate allegiance. So while they may temporarily be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., their ultimate allegiance, the ultimate jurisdiction to which they are subject, belongs to the nation of their birth, the land where they possess citizenship and from whence they came.

Kamala Harris Is Not Eligible to Be Vice-President of the United States

This is so asinine it isn't worth commenting on.

But, here I am....

A women in power must terrify you.

Trump is going to lose, no matter how much he lies, bears false witness, or hires cronies to sabotage the Post Office.
 
Last edited: