• 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

American Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
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.

The issue is not about citizenship, the issue is about a Natural Born Citizen. Emmert de Vattel discusses that in his "Law Of Nations." A Natural Born Citizen is one born of two parents who both are citizens of the same country. That child would naturally be a citizen of his/her parents country. That holds true for every nation on earth. Some things are natural and some things are man made; for example a child born to two parents who are citizens of the same country is a citizen of their country by nature but men make laws to determine who else they will allow citizenship. The Constitution gives congress the authority of naturalization of citizens, i.e. determining citizenship for those not born of two citizens of their country.

What you are reasoning is the acts of men who have made laws to define citizenship of their country.

Nature teaches us that the birth of Obama and Harris are not natural but unnatural. It is not the norm. They are not without question. Without a DNA test the absolute father of Obama or Harris cannot be ascertained. Where is the chain of evidence establishing their conception.

The requirement for a president or vice president of these United States of America require one to be a Natural Born Citizen.

Your reasoning has Obama being torn between the laws of Kenya which declared a child citizenship by that of his father and the laws of the USA which you say claimed him a citizen by that of his mother. That is a very good argument to prove why the framers of the Constitution limited the Executive office to that of a Natural Born Citizen of these United States of America.
 

AnonymousCitizen

New member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
4
Location
Colorado
I'm no fan of Country Joe and the Hoe, but are you sure about this statement? "Ms. Harris was a citizen of Jamaica and therefore could not be a natural born citizen of the United States" Why can she not be both?
 

American Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
I explained in the post above yours. There is a difference between a "citizen" and a "Natural Born Citizen" The Constitution recognizes the difference when it addresses the Executive Office of the USA.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
I'm no fan of Country Joe and the Hoe, but are you sure about this statement? "Ms. Harris was a citizen of Jamaica and therefore could not be a natural born citizen of the United States" Why can she not be both?
My point is that she is not a citizen of the United States, period! She is not natural born or naturalized!
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
AFA.net - Kamala Harris Is Not Eligible to Be Vice-President of the United States

Kamala Harris Is Not Eligible to Be Vice-President of the United States
I agree with almost every major point of the article except one. Under current law, as articulated by the Supreme Ct., the parents do not have to be citizens for the child to be born a natural citizen. You may conclude that the SC decided Wong Kim Ark incorrectly, however that is the current state of the law.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
I agree with almost every major point of the article except one. Under current law, as articulated by the Supreme Ct., the parents do not have to be citizens for the child to be born a natural citizen. You may conclude that the SC decided Wong Kim Ark incorrectly, however that is the current state of the law.

is there, per forum mandates cites to substantiate your statements "current law" & "articulated by ussc"?
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
For the 4 idiots constantly spewing nonsense on this forum, the cite is Dr. Cocked&Locked, Attorney At Law extraordinaire.

For the rest of the forum that has some degree of reading comprehension, they already have realized that I cited Wong Kim Ark!

Happy stupid?
 

American Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
280
Location
, ,
The court has attempted to "Make Law" in other matters such as the "Defense of Marriage Act" and the abortion rights.

The Wong Kim Ark case was an argument over citizenship of a Chineese child NOT ABOUT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. I read that case several years ago but here is the crux of it.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that "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", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.
 

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
431
Location
Planet Earth
If some definitive proof could be found against "Kameltoe" at this late stage, wouldn't that throw a major kink in old Soros' plans? :devilish:
 
Last edited:

jammer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
85
Location
, ,
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.
IT TAKES TWO ( natural born citizens ) OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL, TO HAVE A CHILD WHO THEN BECOMES A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN., NOT JUST ONE PARENT, PERIOD.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
190
Location
PA
IT TAKES TWO ( natural born citizens ) OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL, TO HAVE A CHILD WHO THEN BECOMES A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN., NOT JUST ONE PARENT, PERIOD.
Wong Kim Ark was held to be a natural born citizen by the SC and NEITHER one of his parents were citizens of the US. So you are wrong.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,964
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
For the 4 idiots constantly spewing nonsense on this forum, the cite is Dr. Cocked&Locked, Attorney At Law extraordinaire.

For the rest of the forum that has some degree of reading comprehension, they already have realized that I cited Wong Kim Ark!

Happy stupid?
Claiming to be an attorney, cocked&locked, your language would easily get you sanctioned under the rules of professional conduct. Attorneys have a moral and ethical duty to treat all persons with courtesy and respect, and not bringing disrespect to the legal profession. That you have done. Let alone your disregard for the forum rules.

Here, you say you are from PA. On other forms you say you are from NC. We don’t know where you are from nor if you are actually an attorney. And no one that we know has stepped up and vouched for you. Not even the attorney that owns this forum.

You don’t even know how to even cite a case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, (1898). And as an attorney you would think you would explain what Wong says, but you didn’t. So, for the others, Wong at 655 affirmed dicta from Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875).
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: ‘The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
But that is not the end of the story. There are many cases after Wong dealing with what is a “natural-born citizen.” And after many cases addressing this subject, the best original meaning of the Eligibility Clause is that any person defined as a citizen at birth (irrespective parental status) by common law (law of the soil), Constitution (14th Amendment) or even ever-changing statutes is eligible to the presidency.

As usual, cocked&locked, you added nothing to the subject matter at hand.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
For the 4 idiots constantly spewing nonsense on this forum, the cite is Dr. Cocked&Locked, Attorney At Law extraordinaire.

For the rest of the forum that has some degree of reading comprehension, they already have realized that I cited Wong Kim Ark!

Happy stupid?

alas, c&l, your degrading tone and tenor coupled with your insulting demure towards the membership speaks volumes about you, which unfortunately, is not very complimentary at best!

while you might, at least in your own mind, believe you are articulating and contributing significant & invaluable information to one and all, are viewed and considered as nothing more but a blowhard savant!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
For the 4 idiots ...

Happy stupid?
Forum Rule:
(6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!
Reported.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Outstanding. I have long argued that just because someone is born in the United States does not mean they are automatically citizens. The phrase, " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the reason for this. At the time that the 14th Amendment was being considered there was much discussion about the idea of people coming into the country, having children, and then being allowed to remain because the law would consider their progeny to be citizens. Of course this is not true but through the years, most people believe it to be true.

The OP's post is an excellent short dissertation on the facts of this matter and I sincerely thank him for his effort. It does a great job of describing the issue and dispelling the misgivings of the content of the first part of this amendment.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
C&L's initial posting...

Why Kamala Harris does not qualify to be President or Vice President.

snipppped...

...it is my opinion...

To reiterate, yet again...

I believe 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
Outstanding. I have long argued that just because someone is born in the United States does not mean they are automatically citizens. The phrase, " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the reason for this. At the time that the 14th Amendment was being considered there was much discussion about the idea of people coming into the country, having children, and then being allowed to remain because the law would consider their progeny to be citizens. Of course this is not true but through the years, most people believe it to be true.

The OP's post is an excellent short dissertation on the facts of this matter and I sincerely thank him for his effort. It does a great job of describing the issue and dispelling the misgivings of the content of the first part of this amendment.

Thnx. The SC in “Ark” set the bar for natural citizenship to its lowest level. We could have a long debate concerning whether Ark was decided correctly in 1898; or whether it would be decided the same in 2020; or whether it would be decided the same in 1898 or 2020 had the issue been a qualification for President instead of an admittance of an ordinary person at a port.


A fair reading of Ark leaves us with the minimum qualifications for natural citizenship being (1) born in the territory of the US; AND (2) two parents who have legal status to be here; AND (3) two parents who have a demonstrated history of “permanency” in the country, not some “transitory” stay like Kamala’s parents had with student visas.


What makes Kamala’s case interesting is that, even if we accept this low bar as being correct, she does not come close to meeting it. In fact, if we were to lower the bar even further, to where only ONE NON-CITIZEN PARENT had to show some type of permanent status, she still could not meet it.
 
Top