I myself have speculated that what could be happening in this movie we're watching is that Biden wil be 25th'd and because Kamala isn't eligible (this eligibility opinion may end up in the courts) that speaker of the house will become president. before it's time for the speaker to be anointed president the house will use the new rule to recall a speaker (I'd think McCarthy would be in on and supportive of this speakership swaparoo), and install GEOTUS. many have argued that Harris is eligible and/or that constitution doesn't allow this or whatever. here at GAW we see real info so i took it upon myself to do a little research just to answer the question of whether Harris is eligible. if anyone wishes to, or already has analyzed why and where the constitution allows or doesn't allow the bypassing of an ineligible VP please feel free and let the community know what you dig up.
links to my following statements/arguments are at the bottom.
Obama's BS/faux birth certificate claims he was born in Hawaii and his mom was born in Kansas while dad born in Kenya. this is the one he produced to try to quiet GEOTUS. perhaps Trump was teeing up this Harris scenario back during his "birther" days. i don't doubt anything these days ao certainly wouldn't doubt that Trump and Nikola Tesla could have time traveled. Anyway, back to it. Harris story conversely would seem to indicate, based on wiki, her parents were both foreign born with her mom from India and dad from British Jamaica. so we're talking apples and oranges when one says she can be president because Obama was. he allegedly had a US born parent making him allegedly a natural born citizen by any standard I've researched. requirements to be president include "natural-born US citizen", which seems to mean she had to have been born to a US citizen without having had to go through a naturilization proceeding after birth or so Cornell article opinion suggests. USA Today, a known purveyor of garbage, "analyzed" whether Harris could become president and determined she could, but this article also seems to acknowledge that her parents were not citizens when she was born in CA. instead the article defines natural born citizen differently. lastly, the constitution apparently doesn't have requirements of eligibility for a VP, however the 12th Amendment does read that a VP must meet the eligibility requirements of the Presidency. how enforceable is the 12th A over the constitution? can Harris's status as a natural-born citizen still be challenged or is it a case of laches where this eligibility needed to have already been challenged to have reserved this right? all good questions. me thinks it's far from black and white and I lean toward her not being eligible.
so what say you about whether she is a natural born citizen and eligible? I say nay, and welcome back GEOTUS!
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate (see pdf link to certificate within)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris (see early life section)
https://constitutionus.com/presidents/requirements-and-qualifications-to-become-us-president/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen
https://www.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_requirements_to_be_vice_president
An amendment is a part of the Constitution, and is just as binding. In fact, if there is a conflict, the intent of the Amendment should get precedence over the original text.
She's already been ruled eligible by virtue of her being on the ticket with Biden. The requirements to be VP are identical to the requirements to be president. When they allowed her to run, they made this choice. If Obama wasn't tossed out for this, and his situation was clearly black, there is no way Harris is getting removed for something that is at best gray.
Obama did NOT have a legally born parent capable of granting him citizenship. At the time he was born, his mother had only spent 3 years in the USA after her 18th birthday. The law at that time required that a parent need to live in the USA for 5 years to be eligible to confer citizenship by birth to their children. He was black. Kamala is gray at best, and then only if you use a very particular interpretation of natural born.
Not saying Harris won't be removed, but it won't be by the corrupt courts due to her citizenship status.
as for the amendment I defer to you, but as for his most bases on his bullshit birth cert his mother was BORN in Wichita, KS. with this info do you think differently or please explain where you got 3 years from?
another aside, the Cornell Law article states that "The constitution does not expressly define “natural born” nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled precisely upon its meaning." therefore this definition is ripe to be challenged. let's say the argument of whether Kamala is a natural born citizen is 50/50 or whatever the percentages, a good attorney bringing such case before the courts could reasonably seek an injunction, even if only temporary, to prevent Harris from taking office until such time the courts rule on the matter. the argument is certainly strong that Harris's acting as president if ineligible would or could cause irreparable harm thus justifying an injunction during which time who would temporarily take the seat...the speaker me thinks
The 3 years is a result of the fact that his mother had only spent 3 years living in the USA after she turned 18. She was 23, and had spent 2 of those years abroad.
At the time of Obama's birth, the rule was that in order to confer US citizenship to a child born overseas, at least one citizen parent must have lived in the USA for 5 after their 18th birthday. Since his father was Kenyan and his mother didn't meet the qualification, if Obama was truly born overseas then technically he did not qualify for citizenship by birth.
This is a much different scenario than Kamala, who by all information appears to have really been born in California. Even if her parents were illegal immigrants, by the rules at the time of her birth she still qualified for citizenship by birth. I seriously doubt you will find a single judge willing to issue an injunction on trying to draw a distinction between citizen by birth and natural born, considering that merely by being allowed on the ticket she has already been judged to presumptively pass the requirement. That might be possible once the deep state is defeated, but the corrupt courts now are never going to go along.
I wrote this piece during the election of 2016. It explains exactly what Natural Born means. Natural Born Citizen. What did the founders mean Redux? How does that requirement affect the president Obama and those running for that office. By RA Love I’m often stunned to hear officials and lay people try to re-define the meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. This phrase appears in the constitution as part of the requirements for the President and Vice President. Article II Section 1.5 states: 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. The statement seems pretty clear except for the first line up to the comma. We need to define NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and what the founders meant by “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”,. Lets tackle the last part of the line first: “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,.” Quite simply this lets the founders and other men of age (at that time) to be eligible for the office. Without this wordings there could be no one elected as president because at that time there was no person that fit the definition of Natural Born Citizen ( in the new United States). As part of that definition you had to be a citizen of the United States for 14 years. Because the republic was brand new, the founders were saying that if you were a citizen at the time of the adoption of the document then you were eligible. Now lets take a look at the part in question NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Natural Born Citizen is an interesting phrase. The thought that the framers would use that term for it just to mean a citizen born naturally by natural birth seems strange, as birth and natural born were most likely assumed at the time. So, it must mean something special. The framers new that in order to have a union that was secure and free from outside influence such as elected officials that might be influenced by foreign governments, they had to make sure that the founding documents had some written provision that excluded outside influence. Therefore the term Natural Born Citizen. But what does it actually mean? Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “The Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19, iit reads: § 212. Of the citizens and natives. (bold is mine) “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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Vattel definies the term quite eloquently. This is the meaning that the founders were referring to. But there is a problem. How are we to know that is what the founders were referring? Vattel wrote the Law Of Nations in French, did any of the founders even speak French as well as read the French language? This from the professional interpreter,dated July 4th 2012: Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, first Secretary of State under Washington, and our third President spoke English, French, Italian, Latin, and he could read Greek, and Spanish. Benjamin Franklin, America’s first diplomat and well-known genius spoke English, French and Italian. Our second President: John Adams spoke English, French and Latin. President James Madison spoke English, Greek, Latin and Hebrew. James Monroe spoke English and French. So there we have it. The only thing we need to do is link the founding fathers with Vattel. In the memoirs, coorispondence and misalliance notes of Thomas Jefferson volume 3, Jefferson quotes Vattel in French. He refers to Vattel as an elightened an disinterested judge. This to any should be the final nail in the coffin, however many still are deaf blind and dumb. This by ether by design or ignorance is the crux of the matter. For there can be no doubt of the meaning of the term and what the founders were trying to say. We can also be of no doubt the POTUS (Obama) was never qualified to be president. By his own admission his father was a british subject. Obama’s qualification to be president was overlooked on purpose by the democrats and the wording of the document for his qualification was altered just slightly so as to look like it conformed to the constitutional requirements. Nancy Pelosi was right in the middle of the entire conspriacy. This would have been a simple problem to resolve. However our senators, representatives and yes even the Supreme Court refuses to address the issue. The complicit main stream press continues to ignore every piece of evidence licking the boots of the usurper Obama. The 2016 elections: Ted Cruz was born in Canada December 22,1970. His mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth but his father was not. His father later became a citizen in 2005. This is not what Vattel was saying. Naturalized citizen is not part of the narrative. Ted Cruz by Definition of natural born citizen is not eligible to be president. Marco Rubio mother and father were Cuban citizens naturalized in 1975. This was 4 years after Marco’s birth in Miami on May 28 1971. This from Wikipedia: Rubio was born in Miami, Florida,[2] the second son and third child of Mario Rubio and Oria Garcia. His parents were Cubans who had immigrated to the United States in 1956 and were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975. Folks I did not make this up. I am disturbed by the fact that Cruz is supposed to be a constitutional scholar and has not figured this out. Naturalized citizen is NOT the same as NATURAL BORN as defined by Vattel. The sad part is everybody knows this, the Supreme Court the press and most all of the senators and representatives who aren’t purposefully keeping there heads in the sand or ignoring it. Both Cruz and Rubio know that the left will never bring this up because of Obama’s non-eligibility. However this still doesn’t make it right. Many over the years have been trying to define or fix the phrase Natural Born Citizen. In my view you must go back to Vattel for the the original definition.
excellent comment! I would gather this argument, among others could and should be used if this matter ever finds its way in the courts. I think we can agree however that while this argument appears quite strong, there's no legal precedent as of yet....hopefully Harris will instigate a precedent being set!
The legal precedent should come from the supremes, however they have been “skirting” the issue and refuse to even discuss the problem. Justice Thomas has only mentioned it in passing, hinting the court won’t go near the problem.
if, big IF, the court is a white hat operation that acts unbiasedly all that is needed is proper standing and they will hear the case. odds I agree are that things wont go down this way and the courts wont hear a complaint related to Kamala's natural born status but we are largely a hopeful bunch!
If “we” all got on the same page and pushed it out maybe. But first you have to have the narrative pushed by the MSM. Unless the MSM gets on the rant and on our side about this, probably gonna be pushed to the side.
only 1 person with standing technically needs to push it. speaker of the house for example who would be next in line should confer standing....imagine if that speaker were trump taking the case to supremes
We could hope but not holding my breath. This was a big deal during the Obama election lots was written but no one took up the fight that had any credibility… at least to push it past the corrupt MSM.
not on point because Obama claimed, and his phony birth cert shows his mom being born in US in Wichita KS
If the SC is a bunch of White Hats, why are they so hesitant to take up some of these huge cases, (which might be ruled on for the Right)? They don't want to see if Barry was a legal resident of the US, not taking the Brunson case, just an all around repudiation of the Right. Could it be the black hats have threatened the SC? Slipped them a piece of paper saying "Scalia was #1, will you be #2?" or something along those lines? Or do we continue to trust the plan and let the story play itself out. I've waited for two weeks for a long time yet suddenly I'm thinking those two weeks are just around the corner and when that happens it will be a bad few weeks but then it will get better, quickly.
Personally I think the 2000 election hanging Chad thing weighed heavily on some of the Supremes. They don’t want to be caught up in another case we’re they have to decide an election. I also feel they are compromised in someway Roberts especially.
Thank you for doing a lot of leg work to bring this to the forefront. Too bad a lot of our Constituitonal Scholars are dolts who only think about their own upward mobility. We really need to toss these swamp creatures out and begin cleansing this great country of all the traitors in its midst. Maybe this new Congress will have the stomach to do such things.
Thanks for the kind words. I was so pissed at the Obama election and then the GOP candidates trying to use the same ploy to squirm into the White House I did a deep dive. No doubt this will continue until the SCOTUS puts a stop to it.
Laws do not apply to liberals, so the points are irrelevant.
This was a case that was dismissed https://casetext.com/case/constitution-assn-v-gibbs
thank you much for this. still doesn't deter me and I'll tell you why. this case was filed by plaintiffs pro se (without a lawyer) it appears, it was dismissed on standing matters (i.e., merits never heard), it never even included a second amended complaint from the plaintiffs (they just gave up), the court in summary seemed to suggest that some Joe smoe voters dont confer standing because their alleged harms are too "generalized", and the case was dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE (meaning it set no real precedent).
us anons could come up with reasons why a new lawsuit might be successful, while also realizing how broken the system can be. could the "plaintiff" and judge have been cabal plants to try to lock in Harris via res judicata (legal jargon for when the same matter has already been adjudicated so it cant be tried again)? could the pro se route have been highly imprudent with an extremely low chance of success?
would members of the House have standing ? you'd certainly have to think so. if the white hats have traitorous material on Harris and she's given backroom to face the music of her sins or just walk away from her defense of natural citizenship might she play ball? who knows, but I think we could be in for a ride
I hear Douglas Gibbs reference this case on Patriots Soapbox livestream several weeks ago. I think he said he was still pursuing it. I am going to ask him on chat about it. He usually comes on a show Sunday nights. I will let you know what he says.
cheers fren
Doug addressed my question on Patriots Soapbox chat just now. His case was dismissed in December, 2021. Court said it was not up to the Court but instead up to Congress because it was a political question. Doug appealed in February, 2022 and it is sitting in the 9th Circuit. The federal government poked into the case and said that it is up to Congress because they have the ability to impeach. So it has been stalled. However, Doug said recently a member of Congress (he would not identify who that is) is interested in the case and possibly using the articles of impeachment. So Doug is helping to write that up. Kamala would need to be impeached first in order to remove her. If I get any updates, I will let you know.
sounds like this matter might become quite relevant. thanks for the update and please do keep us all posted. any updates I'd suggest are worth a new post regardless of direction
Good idea. It turns out to be so timely when you made your post.
If the VP is there to template the president in any event, how could we have a VP that cannot fit the bill. That is probably unconstitutional to begin with.
Unfortunately, after reading all the posts here, I still come up with the following premise.... They are Democrats and have you seen ONE DAMN LAW THAT HAS BEEN APPLIED TO THEM?
So, Kamala could be an alien from Mars and the Democrats will not do anything to deprive her of her ascending to the role of Fake President!
And until the Republicans grow some damn balls she will reign unhindered!
Ouchie,but true
I believe the 12th Amendment suggests that the VP should meet the requirements to be president but I'm not aware of any test to this effect. her appointment as VP, if she's found not to be a natural-born citizen, would be unconstitutional. I'm just spitballing here, but as we know the VP is virtually an empty suit and claims by voters against Harris's eligibility seemed to be found to lack standing, meaning in this matter the voters harms weren't significant enough or particularized (see case link above from Raritan). since becoming VP what has Harris done to particularly harm anyone? cast deciding votes in the Senate? well, if it weren't her but instead another Democrat VP pick, would the harm be reasonably expected to go away? highly doubtful. legal standing in the courts up to this point may have been a high hurdle to overcome. if however she stands to become president there are clear harms that hopefully could be claimed which would get this matter past standing and bring this matter to trial thereby forcing the courts to ultimately decide what the definition of a "natural-born US citizen" is and if Harris meets that definition
My citizenship is based only upon birth in a state of the Union. I have no documents that declare any US citizenship. My passport says United States of America on the cover and lists nationality as United States of America. You have a right to attach a sworn affidavit to an application for a passport to make everything clear, in case any fascist government agency wishes to put your passport application into evidence in court. The form to renounce nationality applies only to renouncing United States nationality.
I believe the case relating to the natural born citizen clause is Minor vs Hapersett. An NBC should have
Without all 3, the person is an American, but not qualifying to be President.
do you happen to know where this analysis of NBC is located within the Minor case? I did some research but it doesn't seem to be focused on NBC vs naturalized as the case pertains to any US citizen and only distinguished between a male and female citizen's right to vote
also, what leads you to conclusion (I'm not suggesting you're right ir wrong by questioning) that both parents need to be US citizens? I've read certain opinions that focus just on the father but logically it would seem to me that either parent having citizenship would make a child a NBC
Sorry, no going from memory.
Here is are some resources for further research:
Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers
A blog to discuss the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, "natural born Citizen" presidential eligibility clause.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ .
. Three Legged Stool Test For Natural Born Citizen To Constitutional Standards
https://www.scribd.com/doc/185258103/Three-Legged-Stool-Test-for-Natural-Born-Citizen-to-Constitutional-Standards#
“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.”
— United States Supreme Court, Minor v Happersett (1875)
https://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/05/at-common-law-it-was-never-doubted-minor-v-happersett-and-the-american-common-law/
A natural born citizen is born free of any ties to foreign countries. If a child with one American parent has another parent from EvilCountryX, then perhaps the child would be considered by the laws of EvilCountryX to be a citizen, or subject to military service or slave labor if the child visits. NBC's don't have second citizenships to discard before running for POTUS (see Ted Cruz :) )
thx, all very intriguing. this added info confirms and suggests to me that we need a solid legal precedent. while Woodman states that US vs Ark case from 1898 set the precedent that NBC doesnt require 2 citizen parents, Mario Apuzzo argues fiercely that it's not the case. the arguments within this link's comments is exhausting. and the 3 legged test is logical and convincing
If the courts have not reversed ANY elections so far with known, coordinated fraud (2020, 2022), they will not break pattern and do anything should this situation occur.
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship. -
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen
Citizenship is when a person is born in this country, regardless of where their parents were born. If they were born on this soil, they are a US citizen. Why do you think so many illegals are coming here and having babies? When their baby is born in this country, that baby is a US citizen.
So, if Harris was born in this country, she is a US citizen. (I don't know where she was born.)
a "US citizen" is not a "natural-born US citizen" and in fact my research indicates that the constitution nor the courts have ever legally defined this term which legally is of great significance with this discussion
Nope. Parents must be ‘subject to jurisdiction of’ the USA for their children to be usa citizens. If the parents are subject to jurisdiction of a foreign nation their spawn are also subject to jurisdiction of that foreign nation.
Simple.
Being a natural born citizen is a special case that is only relevant to people that want to be President.