It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Kamala Harris Eligible to Be POTUS?

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Stupid racist document.


I always pencil in Jesus anyway. I think things are so bad now that he said f it....i aint going back down there.




posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   
A quick search for § 212. Citizens and natives. brought me to this page:
4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen"

It sheds a lot of light on the subject. Apparently, § 212. Citizens and natives is from a book called The Law of Nations. The people who wrote the constitution referred to it as a guide and the 4 Supreme Court cases cited here also referred to it.

Overall, the conclusion here is that the definition stands.
edit on 3-2-2019 by toms54 because: spelling



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54

Those are interesting opinions and not far removed from mine. However, they are only evidence for the definition stated in the OP, not verification of the definition. We will likely need a clear definition from the court based on this particular issue. Until then, I prefer to come down on the side of anything being legal as long as it is not illegal.

Incidentally, my personal interpretation of the various terms is:
  • Citizen: one who is either native, natural-born, or a naturalized citizen of the United States.
  • Natural-born: one who is born to at least one citizen of the United States and who spends the majority of their formative years under the care of a citizen of the United States.
  • Native: One born to two natural-born citizens of the United States.
Note that those are simply my personal interpretations and hold no bearing on this case... I include them only to show my personal bias for purposes of furthering the discussion.

I hope that the question concerning the "anchor baby" phenomenon reaches the Supreme Court. We desperately need that clarification, as it would likely shed light on the Harris/Cruz/Rubio question.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I am sorry you were not satisfied. It is true that this article does not agree with your personal ideas. Perhaps those are influenced by the Obama case, maybe not. After reading this several times carefully, I do agree with the conclusion stated there. I also read a few other links and although none gave better evidence, they did not disagree with anything here either.

It's possible this will come up into the SCOTUS. If it does, it will be interesting to see but the fact the question has not been addressed since 1898 suggests that it is regarded as established law.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Eligible no problem.

Qualified is the real question 😎
edit on Feb-03-2019 by xuenchen because: 🐔🐔🐓🐔



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I like the 2 US parent idea. Because of foreign influence. Many felt that Obama excessively favored his Islamic ties. How can we be certain Harris won't favor India in, say, a conflict between India and Pakistan or a question of foreign aid to India? It's not like there is a shortage of Democrats that want this job.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   
She's an anchor baby. We need to get rid of that. The 14th Amendment was a Reconstruction amendment to address the issues of former slaves post Civil War.

You can tell by the way she talks that she doesn't have the deep American soul. She referred to the Constitution as "that little book you carry around with you" when grilling Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Eligible no problem.

Qualified is the real question 😎


She's mastering the art of "false flagging" to achieve objectives.
twitter.com...



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

This issue at hand is what does 'Natural Born Citizen' mean legally. I seen it mentioned by another poster that since she was born in the U.S. she is natural born. This is not true based on the following documents:

www.scribd.com... ement-for-Future-Pres-CinC

Here we can see exactly what the FFs wanted.


Here is the first comment in the article:

If...IF...natural born citizen” does not mean born in the U.S. to parents each of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time there would have been no need for the following attempts by members of Congress to change it or remove it from the presidential eligibility clause altogether. None of these proposals even made it out of committee:

January 14, 1975, Rep. Jonathan Bingham [D-NY]: HJR 33 – Constitutional Amendment providing that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.

January 4, 1977, Rep. Jonathan Bingham [D-NY]: HJR 38 – Constitutional Amendment permitting an otherwise eligible citizen of the United States to hold the office of President even if such individual is not a natural born citizen.

June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder [D-Ark] : HJR 59 – Constitutional Amendment to permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice-president.

Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]: HJR67 – Constitutional Amendment which would have done the same as Snyder’s, only the requirement to be a citizen was lowered to 20 years.

Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles [R-OK]: SB 2128 – Natural Born Citizen Act defined natural born citizen as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States.

Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]: HJR 104 – Constitutional Amendment to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.

Jan. 4, 2005, Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]: HJR2 – The same as Rohrabacher’s.

Feb. 1, 2005, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]: HJR15 – Constitutional Amendment to require only 20 years citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.

April 14, 2005, Rep. Vic Snyder [D-AZ]: HJR42 – Constitutional Amendment making a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.

Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire Catskill [D-MO]: SB 2678 – Amendment thereto clarifying that natural-born citizen includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.


edit on 3-2-2019 by MrBuddy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I find this writing to be valuable as well....

lonang.com...

This was the prevailing ideas on how the Government operated at the time. Nothing has changed besides some additions to other areas.

Let me be clear. Current law states that she can run. I just do not agree with the interperetation the lower courts have given Article 2...and neither do many other scholars.

Perhaps the problem is that BOTH parties are trying to demolish the U.S. and will allow almost any blasphemy of the Constitution to make it happen?



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I find this writing to be valuable as well....

lonang.com...

These were the prevailing ideas on how the Government operated at the time. Nothing has changed besides some additions to other areas.

Let me be clear. Current law states that she can run. I just do not agree with the interperetation the lower courts have given Article 2...and neither do many other scholars.

Perhaps the problem is that BOTH parties are trying to demolish the U.S. and will allow almost any blasphemy of the Constitution to make it happen?
edit on 3-2-2019 by MrBuddy because: Edit



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MrBuddy


Kamala Harris was born in the US, therefore, she is a natural born citizen and eligible to serve as POTUS.



So, ALL anchor babies are eligible to serve as POTUS?



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MrBuddy


Is Kamala Harris Eligible to Be POTUS?


She was born in the US, on US soil. She is over 35.

So, yes, she is eligible.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MrBuddy


Kamala Harris was born in the US, therefore, she is a natural born citizen and eligible to serve as POTUS.



So, ALL anchor babies are eligible to serve as POTUS?


Yes, American citizens over 35 years old are eligible to serve as POTUS.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

Wrong. Not ALL American citizens, over 35, are eligible. Just because someone is BORN in the U. S., that does not make them eligible.
edit on 3-2-2019 by SourGrapes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: SourGrapes


Just because someone is BORN in the U. S., that does not make them eligible.


Yes, it does.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: Liquesence

Wrong. Not ALL American citizens, over 35, are eligible. Just because someone is BORN in the U. S., that does not make them eligible.


Explain.



posted on Feb, 4 2019 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

You must be a natural - born citizen, to be eligible. To be a 'natural - born' citizen, one must be born in the state (or country) of at least one of the parents. So, at least one parent has to American.

So, while anyone can be an American Citizen, if they are born on U. S. soil (even 'anchor babies' ), only the child of a U. S. citizen can be considered "natural - born" (not 'anchor babies').
edit on 4-2-2019 by SourGrapes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2019 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: SourGrapes


Just because someone is BORN in the U. S., that does not make them eligible.


Yes, it does.


Just because YOU believe it does, doesn't make it true.

So, no it doesn't.

Edit to add: ONLY natural - born citizens are eligible for the position of President.
edit on 4-2-2019 by SourGrapes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2019 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: toms54


I am sorry you were not satisfied.

It's not about my satisfaction. It's about the law and the Constitution. I can disagree with them all day long, be dissatisfied with them until the cows come home, and it simply does not matter. They say what they say.

I just don't see where the decisions you linked to have sufficient bearing on the eligibility of Kamala Harris to become President to disenfranchise her. They do present evidence that a case brought to declare her ineligible might have a decent chance of success, but I don't want to see a precedent based on maybe. The ends do not justify the means.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join