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

[historyb]

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

 

[quietthinker]

and I thought Harris was a coffee brand!

 

[Giuliano]

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

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.

 

[Bobby Jo]

Courts have ruled ...

The courts rule against the Constitution all the time, and @historyb stipulated "from a constitutional standpoint".

@historyb is correct in his assessment.
Bobby Jo

 

[Enoch111]

Even children, if born in the US, of illegal aliens are considered citizens.

Which should never be the case. Just goes to show that the rule of law has been abandoned for a very long time.

But even if citizenship is not an issue for Harris, there are numerous other serious issues about this Radical Leftist, who really has no principles, and laughs at unseemly, wicked things.

 

[bukka]

The full text of Article 1 of the 14th Amendment is as follows:

14th Amendment

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I see that the AFA article that historyb is quoting from doesn't cite a prominent constitutional scholar supporting the OP's thesis. It also should be noted that the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is being utilized by political groups that are hostile to the support of the equal protection of the laws for all. This makes the interpretation of this Amendment, to me, highly suspect. I reject it.

 

[Bobby Jo]

... the AFA article that historyb is quoting from doesn't cite a prominent constitutional scholar supporting the OP's thesis. ... I reject it.

If the plain language isn't enough, then a "prominent constitutional scholar" won't be enough either. -- For some, the TRUTH is never enough.

Bobby Jo

 

[Giuliano]

The courts rule against the Constitution all the time, and @historyb stipulated "from a constitutional standpoint".

@historyb is correct in his assessment.
Bobby Jo

I don't see where this is controversial. The Supreme Court which ruled on this matter long ago. Maybe you would rule differently; but then you're not on the Supreme Court. It's not your job to make this kind of decision. Write President Trump -- maybe he'll appoint you if there's an opening soon.

 

[Giuliano]

Which should never be the case. Just goes to show that the rule of law has been abandoned for a very long time.

I will stand with what the Constitution says and how the Supreme Court ruled. You see, I do believe in the rule of law. I believe in respecting the rulings of our courts.

But even if citizenship is not an issue for Harris, there are numerous other serious issues about this Radical Leftist, who really has no principles, and laughs at unseemly, wicked things.

You are wandering off topic.

 

[Bobby Jo]

... The Supreme Court which ruled on this matter long ago. ...

... 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

 

[Giuliano]

The full text of Article 1 of the 14th Amendment is as follows:

14th Amendment

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I see that the AFA article that historyb is quoting from doesn't cite a prominent constitutional scholar supporting the OP's thesis. It also should be noted that the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is being utilized by political groups that are hostile to the support of the equal protection of the laws for all. This makes the interpretation of this Amendment, to me, highly suspect. I reject it.

There was some debate about whether members of native America tribes were subject to the jurisdiction of the US since tribes often had their own laws. Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

In Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether birth in the United States automatically extended national citizenship. The Supreme Court held that Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes did not automatically gain national citizenship. The issue was resolved with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted full U.S. citizenship to indigenous peoples.​

 

[Giuliano]

... and the Supreme Court never makes a bad decision?

You might as well roll the dice to see what the Justices rule on, because it's often as not THE CONSTITUTION.

Bobby Jo

I did not say the Supreme Court was perfect. I said the Supreme Court has the job of interpreting the Constitution, not you and not me. We don't riot and rebel when we think the Supreme Court may have made the wrong decision if we believe in the rule of law.

 

[Bobby Jo]

I will stand with what the Constitution says ...

I AGREE

... and how the Supreme Court ruled. ...

You can't have it both ways, when the Supreme Court rules AGAINST the Constitution.


Mommy says "NO", but Daddy says "YES". And I obey my parents! -- WHAT?!?
Bobby Jo

 

[Bobby Jo]

... We don't riot and rebel when we think the Supreme Court may have made the wrong decision ...

Telling someone he's/she's STUPID is not a riot or rebellion. Why do you say stupid things?!?
Bobby Jo

 

[Giuliano]

Telling someone he's/she's STUPID is not a riot or rebellion. Why do you say stupid things?!?
Bobby Jo

In your head, maybe everyone's stupid except you. What's that say about you?

People who respect the rule of law also do not insult the Supreme Court when it makes decisions they don't like. Court cases involve disagreeing parties. Someone wins, some loses. To have a peaceful society, people need to respect the Supreme Court.

 

[Yehren]

It's another birther fantasy. And it will work pretty much the way the last one did, to convince blacks and Hispanics, it's still not safe to vote republican.

And it really means no gain for the republicans. They already have the racists; they don't need to convince them.

 

[bukka]

If the plain language isn't enough, then a "prominent constitutional scholar" won't be enough either. -- For some, the TRUTH is never enough.

Bobby Jo

A prominent constitutional scholar, Bobby Jo, would add some credibility to this constitutional interpretation. It could offer information that could buttress this assertion. With that lacking, it can become, at a certain point, only the hot air of political opinion.

I would also consider the entire text of Article 1. As I said in that posting:

It also should be noted that the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is being utilized by political groups that are hostile to the support of the equal protection of the laws for all. This makes the interpretation of this Amendment, to me, highly suspect. I reject it.

Equal protection of the laws for all citizens is the main point of the article. This is being contested by present day racists. As Yehren has already pointed out:

It's another birther fantasy. And it will work pretty much the way the last one did, to convince blacks and Hispanics, it's still not safe to vote republican.

And it really means no gain for the republicans. They already have the racists; they don't need to convince them.

Racism, I think, will eventually bleed the Republican Party of its membership and sympathizers and doom it to be largely a southern sectional political party. It will also convince most American non-Christians, already skeptical of Christianity, that Christianity is racist, supported by liars like Trump, who is a living antithesis of what Christianity stands for. They will, rightly, I think, believe that this political support of Trump discloses that American conservative Christianity's nominal adherents no longer believe in Christ and that non-Christians need no longer listen to any calls to repentance.

For me, only Jesus is the Christ. He is my only Lord and Savior. I do not support anti-christs such as Donald Trump.

 

[Enoch111]

Racism, I think, will eventually bleed the Republican Party of its membership and sympathizers and doom it to be largely a southern sectional political party.

Why don't people like you stop constantly pulling out the race card, since that is the only card left to attack conservatives? Joe Biden showed his true racist colors, and all the Black Racists (including those in BLM and the Black Caucus) are now showing their true racist colors since racists Barack and Michelle Obama came on the scene. Obama used his race to get into office, then appointed a whole bunch of corrupt and incompetent blacks in his administration. Someone who is color blind would have gone strictly on merit.

Black politicians have proved over and over again that they are not only incompetent and corrupt, but racist also. Now the evil Democrats have once again pulled out the race card, and rather than talk about merit, they have been insisting that a black woman become the VP. That is pure racism.

 

[Bobby Jo]

A prominent constitutional scholar ... would add some credibility to this constitutional interpretation. ...

Does your wife lay out the clothes you wear for the day? Do you need a neighbor to ask when you're going to finally mow the lawn? Does a Boy Scout help you cross the street? And do your children read the newspaper to you and explain the "big" words? -- NO!

So stop making excuses why you disagree with the text as written.

Whew,
Bobby Jo

 

[Prayer Warrior]

... 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

Your list doesn’t include the worst one of all—Roe v. Wade!