Unless proven with court documents, at the time of Kamala’s birth, her parents were not U.S. citizens. They were foreign students. At the time of her birth, she was the daughter of non-citizens. This makes her an anchor baby. She is not eligible to hold the office of President.
(media.greatawakening.win)
💊 RED PILL 💊
The birth certificate says Obama's Father was a Kenyan citizen when Obama was born. That disqualifies him even if he was born in Hawaii.
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations
Kamala is not even legal to be Vice President, per the 20th Amendment. If Republicans had ANY ballz, they would invoke the 25th Amendment on Biden and simultaneously remove Kamala for ineligibility, making Speaker Johnson the President.
Here's more about Kamala's situation. It also applies to Vivek Ramaswamy, Ted Cruz, Barack Obama and Marco Rubio.
Kamala Harris is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States Not eligible to be President or Vice President https://www.dagnyintel.com/home/kamala-harris-is-not-eligible-to-be-president-the-natural-born-citizen-requirement
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/ This court decision defined “natural born citizen .” Kamala Harris is unfortunately a “natural born citizen.”
What did the Wong Kim Ark case say about "natural born citizen"? The exact words:
'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;' US v. Wong Kim Arkenactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens..." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703 (1898)
The case did not DEFINE "natural born citizen", it RECOGNIZED the actual definition and determined that Mr. Ark is NOT a "natural born citizen".
So, the Judge had to resort to the 14th Amendment to try to make Mr. Ark a citizen by birth. Even that was incorrect, since the 14th Amendment was worded to exclude anyone born with foreign allegiance, its purpose being to give citizenship to the freed slaves who had no foreign allegiance but were not US Citizens either.
Wong Kim Ark, Dred Scott and the Venus cases all acknowledged the definition of "natural born citizen".
Kamala harris is NOT eligible to be President or VP.
CORRECT
Do that and the damn Democrats would win the election in November. You know full well it would get spun as Republicans playing dirty political tricks. Which is why I know none of the powers that be in DC are actually in power, because that's exactly what RINOs would try and do right now with Trump running away with it. Throw the damn Democrats a lifeline. Hell no. Here's a lot of rope... Have fun.
🤔🤔
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Argued: March 5, 1897 Decided: March 28, 1898
Long opinion, here is the bottom line:
[Holding:] The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent 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, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/
I gave +1 for the research. I think the Great Awakening principle is that we are going back to Founding principles. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was a 14th Amendment citizenship case, and I think the direction of judicial philosophy we need to go back to includes natural law — The Law of Nations as written by Emer de Vattel, published in 1758. ”The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” ____The 14th Amendment did not alter this constitutional requirement which had a clear purpose as understood by the Founders when the Constitution for the United States of America. Vattel, “The Law of Nations” Book 1, chapter 19, section 212 ____ Link to online book: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/whatmore-the-law-of-nations-lf-ed
James Kent, author of “Commentaries on American Law” vol. 2 (pp. 18ff in pdf link) did not intend to exclude “of parents who are citizens” from his definition of natural-born citizenship, and neither did Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” volume 3, sections 211-213. Each author merely focussed on the aspect of the territory of birth, but their discussions do not imply that we should neglect Vattel and his complete definition. ____ Kent: https://lonang.com/wp-content/download/Kent-CommentariesVol-2.pdf. Key statement p. 22 The staute of 7 Ann., c. 5. was to the same general effect; but the staute of 4 Geo. II. c. 31. required only that the father should be a natural born subject at the birth of the child, and it applied to all children then born, or thereafter to be born. Under these statutes it has been held, [28] that to entitle a child born abroad to the rights of an English natural born subject, the father must be an English natural born subject, the father must be an English subject….” ____ Kamala is not a natural-born citizen, it appears based on Vattel and Kent.
Additional, Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries: on the Laws of England” p. 239 “ To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2, that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England; and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants.(a) But by several more modern statutes(b) these restrictions are still further taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers (or grandfathers by the father’s side) were natural-born subjects, are now deemed to be natural-born subjects themselves to all intents and purposes….” ____Difficulty: does the USA follow the Continent— Vattel (Swiss)— or English on this subject? Blackstone p. 239 The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects,15 and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.(c)16 ____ link http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2140/Blackstone_1387-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf. ____The Dissent in Wong Kim Ark knew that some Congressional promoters of the 14th Amendment intended to make it so birth on US soil would confer citizenship, but Chief Justice Melville Fuller and Justice John Marshall Harlan” did not agree with the majority opinion and some of the 14th Amendment promoters in Congress.