Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Starrider said:

I believe he did it for the gender and color vote. I don't believe he'll made thru his full term, he already had 2 terms to fix things with o'bummer and didn't so it's easier to blame Trump for all the problems we have today past present and future.

 

Just thinking out loud.

 

Starr

 

I really don't think he'd get the vote any other way to even come close to winning if he didn't do the gender and color card. He needs that 

to come stay in the race and not look that bad when he loses.

Starr

  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Stacey Abrams is MORE qualified exponentially, as a potential VP, than the present (conservative/liberal) "orange" lard butt, golf playing, COMMUNIST (Russia(Putin) , and North Korea(Kim Jong um) symp

What makes you think she's qualified? Other than being a liberal lard butt Incapable of accepting reality,  Oh wait, in the Democratic Socialist world that is qualified 

Go away little man... I'm busy talking to adults about real issues, not unicorn fantasy crap.   B/A

1 hour ago, Starrider said:

 

I really don't think he'd get the vote any other way to even come close to winning if he didn't do the gender and color card. He needs that 

to come stay in the race and not look that bad when he loses.

Starr

 

I somewhat agree with your statement.  Joe is most definitely affording women and minorities a seat at the table, which is certainly a positive thing......As a country we've regressed during this administration with respect to diversity.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

24 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

Joe is most definitely affording women and minorities a seat at the table

Too Bad Kamala Harris Is Not Qualified to Be (Vice) President -

Put simply, Kamala Harris is constitutionally ineligible to be president of the United States because she is not a natural born citizen, as required by Article II (and, by reference, the 12th Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution.

 

While born in the United States — Oakland, California — at the time of her birth, Kamala Harris’ father was a citizen of Jamaica and her mother was a citizen of India. This makes Kamala Harris a native-born American — thus eligible to serve as a U.S. senator — but she is not a natural born citizen, the higher standard set for those occupying the office of president.

What follows is a historically detailed and constitutionally precise analysis of why the Framers of the U.S. Constitution raised the required citizenship bar for those elected president of the United States. I know it’s a bit lengthy, but stay with me. Preventing constitutionally unqualified candidates from usurping power is of critical concern to every American and every man and woman whose life and liberty could be taken by the person with his — or her — finger on the button.

 

The Constitution does not define natural born citizenship, neither have Supreme Court and Congress. The term "natural born citizen" comes from the English concept of "natural born subject," which came from Calvin's Case, a 1608 decision.

Natural born subjects were those who owed allegiance to the king at birth under the "law of nature." The court concluded that under natural law, certain people owed duties to the king, and were entitled to his protection, even in the absence of a law passed by Parliament.

 

Let's explore the possible sources and appropriate interpretations of the “natural born citizen” qualification.

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, a person born subject to the British Crown could hold “double allegiance,” a concept similar to “dual citizenship” as understood today.

 

Our own Founding Fathers, nearly every one of whom was born in some outpost of the British Empire, feared the damage that could come from such divided loyalty. They instituted the “natural born citizen” qualification in order to avoid what Gouverneur Morris described during the Constitutional Convention as “the danger of admitting strangers into our public councils.”

 

As famed jurist of the early Republic St. George Tucker, a contemporary of Morris, explained:

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.

 

In fact, as indicated in early records of the naturalization process, men applying for American citizenship were required to make two renunciations of all fealty to foreign powers before swearing allegiance to the Republic of the United States.

As a matter of fact, the possibility of any legal acceptance of divided allegiance was explicitly rejected in a report issued by the House of Representatives in 1874: "The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”

 

The practical effect of that proclamation is that in order to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, one would have to be free from a competing claim for allegiance from another nation.

 

That such a schizophrenic situation was not only anticipated but accepted by His Majesty’s government during the time of the American founding can be inferred from the impressment of American sailors into the service of the Crown. During the War for Independence, British ships would block American ships from sailing and then the seamen on the British vessels would board the American ships and force the Americans to serve the side of the Empire.

 

The insistence on the part of the British that anyone born within the realm was a British subject regardless of any voluntary severance thereof and subsequent vow of allegiance to another prince was a significant factor in the hostilities known as the War of 1812. 

 

Finally, in this regard, the British required no process of naturalization as such. Simply being born within the dominions of the monarchy of Great Britain was sufficient to endow one with the rights and privileges granted to any British subject. Nothing such a person did later in life (including becoming a citizen of another country) would ever alter his status as subject.

 

Obviously, in the United States that concept is neither the law now, nor was it the law at the time of the founding. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

One of the scholars frequently cited in articles on the subject of the definition of “natural born citizen” is Temple University law professor Peter Spiro.

 

Spiro often cites the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as further evidence that although born outside the United States to a foreign father, recent presidential candidates — including Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — fit the 14th Amendment’s definition of a natural born citizen. 

 

The relevant clause of the 14th Amendment reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.”

The principal architect of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was Michigan Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, a Republican representing Detroit. 

 

Senator Howard crafted much of the language that was eventually ratified as part of the 14th Amendment.

During the debates that embroiled the Senate in the years following the Civil War, Senator Howard insisted that the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be inserted into Section 1 of the 14th Amendment being considered by his colleagues. In the speech with which he proposed the alteration, Howard declared:

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

 

How could a person “born in the United States” be simultaneously a citizen and a “foreigner” or “alien” if the mere fact of nativity settled the question of citizenship?

 

Another legislator commenting at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Representative John Bingham, provided the following clarification of the meaning behind the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause: "Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." (Emphasis added.)

 

While similar questions have been raised regarding the Article II eligibility of Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) who ran for president in 2000 and in 2008, and Mitt Romney, who ran in 2008 and 2012, the case of those two men is distinct from that of Kamala Harris.

 

Both McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone to an American father serving overseas in the military, and Romney, whose father was born in Mexico to American parents, pass constitutional muster.

 

However, in the case of Senator Kamala Harris, the principles of constitutional law and interpretation set forth above call into question her eligibility for president. 

 

So, to conclude, there is no reasonable or legal doubt that at the time of her birth (regardless of the location), Harris’ father was not an American citizen — and thus, should she assume the office of the president, the president would be the child of a person with legal allegiance to a foreign sovereignty and so would not conform to the accepted legal, constitutional, and historical definition of "natural born citizen,” thus Kamala Harris cannot serve as vice-president.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/36704-kamala-harris-is-not-qualified-to-be-vice-president

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Politics

Kamala Harris Birtherism Is Happening. Already. Seriously.

Kelly Weill
The Daily BeastAugust 13, 2020, 1:23 PM EDT
 
Drew Angerer/Getty
Drew Angerer/Getty

That didn’t take long.

President Trump used a White House press briefing on Thursday to amplify a long-debunked conspiracy theory about Sen. Kamala Harris’ legal eligibility to serve in high office.

Asked by a reporter about the baseless claim the California senator is somehow not a natural born citizen, the president ran with it: “I heard it today that she doesn’t meet the requirements, and by the way the lawyer who wrote the piece is highly qualified, very talented,” he said, referring to the conservative lawyer who put forth the bogus claim after Harris was tapped to join the Democratic ticket.

Hours earlier, an adviser to Trump’s re-election team had shared the conspiracy theory.

 

Jenna Ellis, a legal adviser with Trump 2020, retweeted an article questioning whether Harris was eligible to be president or vice president because the senator’s parents were immigrants. As she could surely learn with a quick search, the answer is yes. Harris, a natural-born U.S. citizen from Oakland, California, is allowed to hold those offices.

The bogus theory, deployed against the first Black woman to make a major party’s presidential ticket—as announced on Tuesday—has echoes of the “birther” conspiracy theory that Trump invoked against the first Black U.S. president, Barack Obama.

Asked about the retweet, Ellis told ABC News that “it’s an open question and one I think Harris should answer so the American people know for sure she is eligible."

Everything My Elders Love About Kamala Harris Leaves Me Cold

It is not, in fact, an open question.

Harris meets all the legal requirements to be president. But because her parents were immigrants—her mother from India and her father from Jamaica—a predominantly right-wing theory has misrepresented citizenship law to falsely claim the American-born senator does not have full citizenship rights. Ellis retweeted her post from Tom Fitton, the president of the conservative legal group Judicial Watch, who also could solve the supposed mystery of Harris’s eligibility in five seconds, if he wished to Google it.

Ellis has a long history of making bigoted claims. In her 2015 book, she wrote that a Supreme Court ruling legalizing *** marriange “told the LGBT community that their homosexual lifestyle was not just legal privately, but morally validated openly through government recognition and social celebration and therefore equally as valued as heterosexual unions.”

After the 2015 massacre at Pulse, a *** nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Ellis wrote a column warning that the tragedy could somehow be used to support homosexuality.

Trump personally fueled unfounded citizenship doubts the last time a Black American landed on a major party presidential ticket. Trump famously pushed the “birther” theory about Obama, suggesting that he was not born in Hawaii (he was), but in Kenya (he was not).

“I’m starting to think that he was not born here,” Trump said in a 2011 interview. The following year, as Obama was up for re-election, Trump tweeted that “an ‘extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud.”

Trump persisted with the theory even after Obama secured a second term. “Attention all hackers: You are hacking everything else so please hack Obama's college records (destroyed?) and check ‘place of birth,’” he tweeted in 2014.

The false narrative about Harris’ eligibility, and other theories like it, have previously bubbled up on Twitter when Harris surged in the presidential polls. In January 2019, chronic hoaxster Jacob Wohl tried arguing that Harris was ineligible to run due to her immigrant parents. Other right-wing figures shared the false claims on Twitter.

Other conservatives took a slightly different tack in 2019, not accusing Harris of being ineligible but claiming that she was not Black because her heritage is Jamaican-Indian. One tweet on the topic, by a Black conservative political operative who sometimes works with Wohl, saw massive spread across Twitter after it was retweeted by a network of bot accounts—and by Donald Trump Jr.

“Is this true?” Trump Jr. wrote, quote-tweeting the claim. “Wow.”

He later deleted the tweet about Harris’ ethnicity, with a spokesperson stating that people “misconstru[ed] the intent of his tweet.”

“Don’s tweet was simply him asking if it’s true that Kamala Harris was half-Indian because it’s not something he had ever heard before,” the spokesperson said.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-birtherism-happening-already-172317889.html

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right. Here we go again.  :facepalm: Subverting the very document so many have died trying to protect the very values it contains. 

So many who have sworn to defend and protect it now want to ignore it for "feelings". Feelings of hate being one of them. Anything to see the current, legal, duly elected president defeated in the next election. 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like Kamala Harris or Joe Biden at all, and I'm not voting for them, but this is really stupid.

If she's born here, she should be eligible.  This is a little too "nit-picky" for me:

 

"While born in the United States — Oakland, California — at the time of her birth, Kamala Harris’ father was a citizen of Jamaica and her mother was a citizen of India. This makes Kamala Harris a native-born American — thus eligible to serve as a U.S. senator — but she is not a natural born citizen, the higher standard set for those occupying the office of president."

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nstoolman1 said:

 

Well, OK, THEE "noted" "birth" "certificate" "notes" Kamala AS "female" in Box 2.

 

WHERE, pray tell, is MICHAEL OBAMA'S ACTUAL "birth" "certificate" WITH GENDER "notation"???!!!

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Floridian said:

I don't like Kamala Harris or Joe Biden at all, and I'm not voting for them, but this is really stupid.

If she's born here, she should be eligible.  This is a little too "nit-picky" for me:

 

"While born in the United States — Oakland, California — at the time of her birth, Kamala Harris’ father was a citizen of Jamaica and her mother was a citizen of India. This makes Kamala Harris a native-born American — thus eligible to serve as a U.S. senator — but she is not a natural born citizen, the higher standard set for those occupying the office of president."

 

 

There is no "nit picky" when it comes to the Constitution or BoR.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Floridian said:

 

I know.  My son just told me the same thing.  😂

I guess I have my own ideas about things.   😂

I understand.

Many people treat the Constitution  and BoR like the Bible.

They pick and choose what they want to follow and then get upset when they are called out on it. 

Follow all of it or none of it. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

I understand.

Many people treat the Constitution  and BoR like the Bible.

They pick and choose what they want to follow and then get upset when they are called out on it. 

Follow all of it or none of it. 

 

That's kind of harsh.  I'm not upset about it.  And I don't mean to "pick and choose".

I'm just saying it doesn't sound right to me.

But, be that as it may, I am no fan of Kamala or Slow Joe, and if she's not allowed to be VP, so be it!

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Floridian said:

 

That's kind of harsh.  I'm not upset about it.  And I don't mean to "pick and choose".

I'm just saying it doesn't sound right to me.

But, be that as it may, I am no fan of Kamala or Slow Joe, and if she's not allowed to be VP, so be it!

 

 

I meant no harshness towards you.

I should have made it more clear that I was making more of a "general" statement about some people.

Please except my apology 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.