• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Kamala Does Not Qualify to be Vice President

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Why Kamala Harris does not qualify to be President or Vice President.


The qualifications for President, which are the same for Vice President, are spelled out in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution. They are as follows:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

There is not any dispute that Ms. Harris is older than 35 years or has been a resident within the United States for 14 years. There is also no dispute that Ms. Harris was not a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution in 1790. Therefore, the only remaining question is whether Ms. Harris was a “natural born citizen”.

“Citizen” is defined by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which states in relevant part as follows:
“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.” A “natural born citizen” is understood to mean a citizen at the moment of your birth (as opposed to a naturalized citizen who becomes a citizen through operation of law subsequent to birth).

Ms. Harris, having been born in Oakland, California, clearly fulfills the first portion of the requirements of the 14th Amendment. However, that does not end the analysis. The Constitution requires more than just being physically born within the territory of the United States. The Constitution also requires that, at the time of birth, the person be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been further interpreted to mean subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998). That is what a “natural born citizen” means. Without this full and complete jurisdiction, any foreign government can intervene on behalf of their own citizens while they visit or reside within the United States – just as the United States is known to do on behalf of U.S. citizens within other countries. Therefore, the term “natural born citizen” cannot include persons born in the United States who are foreigners or aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.

At the time of Ms. Harris’ birth, Kamala’s mother was an Indian national and legal alien here on a student visa. At the time of Ms. Harris’ birth, Kamala’s father was a Jamaican national and legal alien also here on a student visa. It is important to note that being in this country on a student visa is a very “transient” condition since it is understood that, as a condition of admittance, when your studies are concluded you will leave the country! Therefore, Ms. Harris could not gain citizenship from the status of either of her parents.

And so the question is whether Ms. Harris can gain citizenship in her own right? The Constitution of Jamaica states as follows:
3C. Every person born outside Jamaica shall become a citizen of Jamaica -
a. on the sixth day of August, 1962, in the case of a person born before that date; or
b. on the date of his birth, in the case of a person born on or after the sixth day of August, 1962,
if, at that date, his father or mother is a citizen of Jamaica by birth, descent or registration by virtue of marriage to a citizen of Jamaica.

Therefore, it is undisputed that at the time of her birth, Ms. Harris was a citizen of Jamaica and therefore could not be a natural born citizen of the United States. Denial of citizenship under these circumstances, where the person owes an allegiance to another sovereign conforms with the constitutional definition given to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

Because of the foregoing, it is my opinion that Kamala Harris is unqualified to hold the office of President or Vice President!
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,073
Location
here nc
I belive Twain stated it quite succinctly...

Opinions based upon theory, superstition, and ignorance are not very precious.

Mark Twain in a Letter to J. H. Twitchell, 1/27/1900
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
I belive Twain stated it quite succinctly...

Opinions based upon theory, superstition, and ignorance are not very precious.

Mark Twain in a Letter to J. H. Twitchell, 1/27/1900
As per the usual, you can always be counted on to add NOTHING!

By the way, how is your research going on cops filing charges?
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,796
Location
Granite State of Mind
Why Kamala Harris does not qualify to be President or Vice President.
...

Therefore, it is undisputed that at the time of her birth, Ms. Harris was a citizen of Jamaica and therefore could not be a natural born citizen of the United States.

I deleted the utter nonsense in between, because it is utter nonsense.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Kamala Harris has a long history of being both the DA of San Francisco and the AG of California. During the course of this history she undoubtedly encountered thousands of defendants with a shady immigration status. Are we to believe that not once did she ever reflect upon her own personal immigration status? My argument is that, as a trained lawyer who took a Constitutional Law class in school, she knew or should have known long ago that she was never a citizen of the United States. So, what should the personal ramifications be for perpetrating a fraud on the American people by running for an office she was not qualified to hold?

Joe Biden is also a trained lawyer and former prosecutor who would undoubtedly have the same experiences with people with a shady immigration status. He conducted a vetting process of Kamala where they supposedly counted the hairs between her buttocks before approving her. Joe Biden knew or should have known that Ms. Harris was not qualified to be Vice President. Did Joe engage in a conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud upon the people? So, what should the personal ramifications be for Joe?

The DNC has an army of lawyers to vet their candidates. Are we to believe that, with Kamala’s family history being so public, not one of their army of lawyers ever gave a moment’s thought to her immigration status? Wasn’t it their job to make sure the candidate met the minimum qualifications? Were they also involved in a conspiracy with Kamala and/or Joe? What should the ramifications for the DNC be?

AG Barr could put this case together in 15 minutes if he really wanted to. Why is he allowing our republic to be literally taken over by a citizen of Jamaica? Did he not swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

Why is President Donald J. Trump also allowing this to happen?
 
Last edited:

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Kampala Harris has a long history of being both the DA of San Francisco and the AG of California. During the course of this history she undoubtedly encountered thousands of defendants with a shady immigration status. Are we to believe that not once did she ever reflect upon her own personal immigration status? My argument is that, as a trained lawyer who took a Constitutional Law class in school, she knew or should have known long ago that she was never a citizen of the United States. So, what should the personal ramifications be for perpetrating a fraud on the American people by running for an office she was not qualified to hold?

Joe Biden is also a trained lawyer and former prosecutor who would undoubtedly have the same experiences with people with a shady immigration status. He conducted a vetting process of Kamala where they supposedly counted the hairs between her buttocks before approving her. Joe Biden knew or should have known that Ms. Harris was not qualified to be Vice President. Did Joe engage in a conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud upon the people? So, what should the personal ramifications be for Joe?

The DNC has an army of lawyers to vet their candidates. Are we to believe that, with Kamala’s family history being so public, not one of their army of lawyers ever gave a moment’s thought to her immigration status? Wasn’t it their job to make sure the candidate met the minimum qualifications? Were they also involved in a conspiracy with Kamala and/or Joe? What should the ramifications for the DNC be?

AG Barr could put this case together in 15 minutes if he really wanted to. Why is he allowing our republic to be literally taken over by a citizen of Jamaica? Did he not swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

Why is President Donald J. Trump also allowing this to happen?
Why, pray tell, haven't you submitted this revelation to the rest of the universe? Surely they await your wisdom on this issue. We do have free speech, and in this case, yours is worth every penny paid.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,073
Location
here nc
Ah yet another of Twain's wisdom adages arises...

"Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
 

American Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
254
Location
, ,
During the founders deliberations about waht kind of government these united states should have they rejected that which they had thrown off and sought to form a better system of government. They had a clear knowledge of the government of Great Britain and they considered the governments of other nations of the world to find the best of the best. During their research they had in hand the work of Emmert de Vattel's THE LAW OF NATIONS among their other sources of information.

Vattel considered the "citizenship" of people whereas Blackstone considered the "subjection" of people. Blackstone reasoned that all the people of Great Britain as well as all those of other lands which Great Britain had conquered were subjects of Great Britain. Vattel wrote that parents who were citizens of two different countries and had a child would expose the child to two different loyalties; that of his/her mother's country and that of his/her father's country. He reasoned that a child born to a father and a mother who each were citizens of the same country would automatically be a Natural Born Citizen of their country.

The founders of the USA had copies of THE LAW OF NATIONS furnished to them by Benjamin Franklin. Franklin had multiple copies of the work and placed one in the nation's library, gave a copy to the founders during their deliberations while in convention and kept a copy for himself. The phrase NATURAL BORN CITIZEN could only be found in Vattel's LAW OF NATIONS at the time of the writing of the US Constitution. Blackstone discussed SUBJECTS; Vattel discussed CITIZENS. The founders were throwing off the law and rule of Great Britain and devising their own rule of law.

A person who desires to be a president or vice president of the USA must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of this nation. A person who has no other allegiance because of being born to parents who were of foreign countries

In the last presidential election in 2016 there were three candidates who ran on the republican party who were children of foreign parents and the two election before the last election the democrat president was born to a father of a foreign country. That birth was much debated but never litigated in the courts to prove the qualification of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

A highly recommended research would be to look into the information which the founders had in hand and used during their discussions as recorded and archived for our understanding of why they used the phrase Natural Born Citizen as a requirement for the offices President and Vice President. Each word and phrase of The Constitution is important for our day. The Constitution is the result of years of research and deliberation by very intelligent men. We are not to take it lightly. It has been and still is being neglected by some seeking power over we the people.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
During the founders deliberations about waht kind of government these united states should have they rejected that which they had thrown off and sought to form a better system of government. They had a clear knowledge of the government of Great Britain and they considered the governments of other nations of the world to find the best of the best. During their research they had in hand the work of Emmert de Vattel's THE LAW OF NATIONS among their other sources of information.

Vattel considered the "citizenship" of people whereas Blackstone considered the "subjection" of people. Blackstone reasoned that all the people of Great Britain as well as all those of other lands which Great Britain had conquered were subjects of Great Britain. Vattel wrote that parents who were citizens of two different countries and had a child would expose the child to two different loyalties; that of his/her mother's country and that of his/her father's country. He reasoned that a child born to a father and a mother who each were citizens of the same country would automatically be a Natural Born Citizen of their country.

The founders of the USA had copies of THE LAW OF NATIONS furnished to them by Benjamin Franklin. Franklin had multiple copies of the work and placed one in the nation's library, gave a copy to the founders during their deliberations while in convention and kept a copy for himself. The phrase NATURAL BORN CITIZEN could only be found in Vattel's LAW OF NATIONS at the time of the writing of the US Constitution. Blackstone discussed SUBJECTS; Vattel discussed CITIZENS. The founders were throwing off the law and rule of Great Britain and devising their own rule of law.

A person who desires to be a president or vice president of the USA must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of this nation. A person who has no other allegiance because of being born to parents who were of foreign countries

In the last presidential election in 2016 there were three candidates who ran on the republican party who were children of foreign parents and the two election before the last election the democrat president was born to a father of a foreign country. That birth was much debated but never litigated in the courts to prove the qualification of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

A highly recommended research would be to look into the information which the founders had in hand and used during their discussions as recorded and archived for our understanding of why they used the phrase Natural Born Citizen as a requirement for the offices President and Vice President. Each word and phrase of The Constitution is important for our day. The Constitution is the result of years of research and deliberation by very intelligent men. We are not to take it lightly. It has been and still is being neglected by some seeking power over we the people.
By that rational, George Washington wasn't a Natural Born Citizen of the United States either, as that nation didn't exist at the time of his birth. Both of his parents were English Subjects. Did they become Naturalized Citizens at the Founding?
 

jammer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
78
Location
, ,
PLOWSEY (PLOSIE) VETTED OBAMA AND GOT AWAY WITH IT SO SHE FIGURED SHE WAS ABLE TO DO IT AGAIN, OUR REPRESENTATIVES HAVE NO BACKBONE ANYMORE DEM'S OR REP'S.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,073
Location
here nc
Query AP, when you state, "Each word and phrase of The Constitution is important for our day." which meaning are today's citizens/courts/legislative body to use, textual/originalist word meaning based on the era they were penned for the original constitutional construct interpretation or today's meaning of those words?

For example, take the opening of the document..."We the People..." should be simple enough...but
WE the PEOPLE from the founders perspective meant ~ White aristocratic males ~ period!

no females, no blacks, no Natives ~ white males

does 200+ years give this country's citizens to morph those words as the see fit...USSC members havent that should be the case, yet J.Q.Citizen hasn't been trained to look at the founders' meaning from their original construct but rather a "modern" interpretation!
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,602
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
THE LAW OF NATIONS
OR THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW
Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of
Nations and of Sovereigns
By E. DE VATTEL
Residents, as distinguished from citizens, are aliens who are permitted to take a permanent abode in the country. Being bound to the society by reason of their dwelling in it, they are subject to its laws so long as they remain there, and, being protected by it, they must defend it, although they do not enjoy all the rights of citizens. They have only certain privileges which the law, or custom, gives them. Permanent residents are those who have been given the right of perpetual residence. They are a sort of citizens of a less privileged character, and are subject to the society without enjoying all its advantages. Their children succeed to their status; for the right of perpetual residence given them by the State passes to their children.

A Nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may confer citizenship upon an and admit him into the body politic. This act is called naturalization. There are some States in which the sovereign cannot grant to an alien all the rights of citizens; for example, that of holding public office; so that he has only authority to grant an imperfect naturalization, his power being limited by the fundamental law. In other States, as in England and Poland, the sovereign cannot naturalize aliens without the concurrence of the representative assembly. Finally, there are others, such as England, in which the mere fact of birth in the country naturalizes the children of an alien.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
PLOWSEY (PLOSIE) VETTED OBAMA AND GOT AWAY WITH IT SO SHE FIGURED SHE WAS ABLE TO DO IT AGAIN, OUR REPRESENTATIVES HAVE NO BACKBONE ANYMORE DEM'S OR REP'S.
In my opinion (although it pains me to say it), Obama was qualified to be President; Kamala definitely is not!
 

American Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
254
Location
, ,
Solus:
textual/originalist word meaning based on the era they were penned for the original constitutional construct interpretation

YES; DOUBLE YES.

WE the PEOPLE

That is not what they wrote.

The citizens have a remedy for what they do not like about the constitution, it is called AMENDMENT.


cocked&locked:
In my opinion (although it pains me to say it), Obama was qualified to be President; Kamala definitely is not

A search Kenyan statutes will reveal that Kenya determined citizenship of a child by the citizenship of his/her father, not the place of their birth.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
Solus:


YES; DOUBLE YES.



That is not what they wrote.

The citizens have a remedy for what they do not like about the constitution, it is called AMENDMENT.


cocked&locked:


A search Kenyan statutes will reveal that Kenya determined citizenship of a child by the citizenship of his/her father, not the place of their birth.
Except that Barack Obama was an “adulterous bastard” child under the law. As such, he would inherit his “citizenship” from his mother, not his father! His mother was an American citizen and therefore he would be a natural born citizen.
It is actually a little more complicated analysis than this, but that is the gist of it.
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
306
Location
Planet Earth
Except that Barack Obama was an “adulterous bastard” child under the law. As such, he would inherit his “citizenship” from his mother, not his father! His mother was an American citizen and therefore he would be a natural born citizen.
It is actually a little more complicated analysis than this, but that is the gist of it.

At the time of his birth (wherever that might have been), his mother was not old enough to have passed on her "citizenship". IIRC, she was only 20 and you have to be 21 (at least back then) to pass it on if you aren't on "American soil".
And she wasn't.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
At the time of his birth (wherever that might have been), his mother was not old enough to have passed on her "citizenship". IIRC, she was only 20 and you have to be 21 (at least back then) to pass it on if you aren't on "American soil".
And she wasn't.
The laws regarding the transmission of United States citizenship to children born outside the United States are complex. A distinction is made between legitimate and illegitimate children for the purposes of citizenship eligibility. In addition, the laws that were in effect at the time of the child's birth determine whether citizenship is transmitted in a particular case. At the time of Barack Obama’s birth the 1952 Laws were in effect. Those laws actually gave more protection to illegitimate children than legitimate ones.

The laws you cited were for legitimate children born outside the US territory. If you believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, they don’t apply! If you believe Obama was born in Kenya, they still don’t apply because Obama was illegitimate.

The 1952 laws regarding illegitimate children where the mother is the US citizen were that an illegitimate child acquired U.S. citizenship from a U.S. citizen mother if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth and had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

Obama met the minimum qualifications!
 
Top