Sign up to receive Alan's newsletter by email.

Speaking engagements

  • Invite Alan Korwin to speak at your event! Thought-provoking, entertaining, freedom-oriented topics -- your guests will thank you for the excitement -- long after the applause ends!

Books

« Democrats Gun Restriction Plan | Main | What Is a "natural born Citizen"? »

Kamala Harris Is Not Eligible

REMEMBER: Kamala Harris is not eligible to become President of the United States.

Neither of her parents were American citizens at the time of her birth. It’s like offering the children of any other foreigners as candidates. It is forbidden, banned, not allowed by the U.S. Constitution, which spells out the requirements.

A candidate, a valid candidate, must be a “natural born Citizen” per article Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the U.S. Constitution: “No person, except a natural born Citizen,” shall be eligible to the Office of President. This is not about any past mistakes, or modern arguments -- of which there are many. It is about The U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. Kamala Harris is ineligible.

What Congress relied upon in drafting that section --

Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at § 212:

  • 212: The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

John Jay (first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) wrote to George Washington:

July 25, 1787

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

Modern media pundits and others are attempting to confuse the issue, but the reality and logic is plain and inescapable: only a 100% American can be President. How foreign is too foreign? Any. (Her mother was from India, her father was Jamaican, neither had been in the U.S. long enough (five years) to have become naturalized at the time of her birth.) Sorry, those are the facts. She may be nice, talented, experienced, she isn't qualified.

What would happen if our country got into a disagreement with a nation that was the homeland of a President with foreign roots, parents from elsewhere? Where would the person’s loyalty reside? Who would that person side with? Would the person have undivided loyalty to this country? Of course not -- the conflict would be monumental. India has nuclear weapons. Jamaica is close to our shores. Both have alliances with other nations, some less than friendly with us, and complex financial relationships, supply chains, citizens here. The Founding Fathers recognized the problem those foreign entanglements would cause. That split loyalty is why our Constitution requires the U.S. President must be 100% American.

Details, if you want more:

https://www.gunlaws.com/Should We Elect An American President.htm

Comments

N S

For anyone who has read or paid any attention at all to our Constitution, they should know this easily. Same reason why Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio are not eligible.
But under the thinking of the demoncrats and the left, what does it matter. Since they don't and won't follow the Constitution for any reason other than to fit their distorted agenda. And just venturing a guess here, but I'd say about 70% of republicans follow the same suit..

Harold Gielow

http://www.gielow.org/Writings/Natural_Born_Citizen.htm

Natural Born Citizen
Definition given on the floor of Congress, Representative John Bingham, father of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Reference - (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.”


Chief Justice Marshall’s dissent in the Venus case of 1814 had a quote from Vattel on the subject:

“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject, rests on the law of nations as its base. It is, therefore, of some importance to enquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character, or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."’

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/85070/the-venus-rae-master/

The unanimous opinion in Minor v Happersett of 1875 written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite defined natural born citizen as follows:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/88998/minor-v-happersett/?q=minor+v+happersett

In US v Wong Kim Ark of 1898 written by Associate Justice Horace Gray, Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent had this to say:

“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural-born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency,...”

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/94842/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark/?q=us+v+wong+kim+ark&type=o&order_by=score+desc&stat_Precedential=on

In Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913), the Supreme Court said:“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.”

If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, "no person, except a native-born citizen"; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth." - "NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT" (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905))

In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word "jurisdiction" under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean "the absolute and complete jurisdiction. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them."

Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the Amendment’s goal to "make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US," and if "the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen."

"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." - Sen. Trumbell

Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;”

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/88661/slaughter-house-cases/

“From the premises already established, it may be farther inferred, that citizenship, by inheritance, be∣longs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmit∣ted it to their offspring.”


A DISSERTATION ON THE MANNER OF ACQUIRING THE CHARACTER AND PRIVILEGES OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.
PRINTED IN THE YEAR MDCCLXXXIX. by David Ramsey, 1745 - 1815

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N17114.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

A contemporary Supreme Court citation of Vattel citing his expertise, his current applicability, and his credibility with the founders.
5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt,  __ U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 1485 (2019).
“According to the founding era’s foremost expert on the law of nations, “[i]t does not … belong to any foreign power to take cognizance of the administration of [another] sovereign, to set himself up for a judge of his conduct, and to oblige him to alter it.” 2 E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations § 55, p. 155 (J. Chitty ed. 1883).”

Finally, my two cents. http://www.gielow.org/Writings/Natural_Born_Citizen.htm

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In.

Read what people are saying about Page Nine, or tell Alan yourself.

See the archives below, or click through to an index of Page Nine posts at Gunlaws.com

About the Author

  • Freelance writer Alan Korwin is a founder and past president of the Arizona Book Publishing Association. With his wife Cheryl he operates Bloomfield Press, the largest producer and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Here writing as "The Uninvited Ombudsman," Alan covers the day's stories as they ought to read. Read more.

Recent Comments

Read the last 100 comments on one handy page here!