Kamala Harris is NOT a Natural Born Citizen and is ineligible to be VP

I would guess in Trump's second term we'll see this addressed.

Also, unsealing Obama's college records (why the fuck would college records be sealed?!? )

Also, Obama's use of fraudulent Social Security #' while he was in college.

Lots of fun to be had in a 2nd term

Exactly. OP claiming that both parents have to have lived in the US for five years it total made up BS.

Just try passing that fake information off to try and discredit Harris. The public will laugh it off as more conspiracy theory witch hunt spew and that will definitely backfire.

She's an anchor baby.

By your logic, neither is Trump because his mother was born in Scotland.

Remember when Donald Trump was going to have a "bombshell new conference" to announce the stunning information from that team of private detectives that he hired?

Eight years ago?

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

Never happened. That was all a witch hunt as well.

How about 4 of them?

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

[link to supreme.justia.com (secure)]

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

[link to supreme.justia.com (secure)]

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

[link to supreme.justia.com (secure)]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

[link to supreme.justia.com (secure)]

That wasn't the issue with Obama.

Obama renounced his US citizenship when they moved to Indonesia. Indonesia doesn't allow dual-citizenship and it was proven that Obama was an Indonesian citizen (so he couldn't of been a US citizen since they don't allow dual citizenship).

I think Trump will go scorched earth in his 2nd term and we'll see lots of Demonrat heads roll.

It'll be glorious watching them all hang.

I, for one, welcome our new entrant into the presidential elections.


Couldn't be happier.

But if you can read better and have a higher, more adult level of reading comprehension, you would know that a visiting citizen of another country is actually subject to the jurisdiction of that other country, unless they follow the legal process to obtain citizenship that we have in place in order for non-citizens to become citizens.

I Know it's uncommon to have any sense these days and I certainly don't expect you or any Dems to grasp any concepts.

It's time to sit down and shut up.

Cornell is wrong:

Consider:

First, as to the formal logical fallacy, let us break down what Maskell and Quasius actually said into its logical form. I will use the following symbols: Natural born Citizen=NBC, and Citizen at birth=CAB

All NBCs are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S “citizen” mother and non-U.S. “citizen” father) are CABs.
Therefore, all persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.

First, it is a tautology to argue that a “natural born Citizen” is a born citizen. Second, this argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent (affirming that one is a CAB does not prove that one is a NBC). Third, this argument suffers from fallacy in that it violates the rule of the undistributed middle (the middle term CABs is not distributed in either the major or minor premise meaning the term has not been defined as belonging or not belonging within the class of NBCs). So, while the major and minor premises are both true, the conclusion, which equates a CAB to a NBC is false. We should see intuitively that the conclusion does not follow from the two premises. An easy way to see the invalidity of the argument is the following:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.

We know that this argument is not valid because, with dogs being comprised of more than just poodles, Bubbles can be a German Shepherd or some other type of dog.

Second, now let us examine the informal fallacy of the Maskell/Quasius statement. Now we will test the truth of the major and minor premises of the argument. To do that, we need to help Maskell and Quasius a little by converting their invalid argument into a valid one. Here we go:

All CABs are NBCs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.

This argument is valid because if the major and minor premises are true, the conclusion must be true. But while the argument is valid as to its logical form, it is not sound, meaning that the major or minor premise or both are false. This adjusted Maskell argument is not sound because its major premise is false. With the major premise being false, so is its conclusion. Let me explain. First, the major premise, all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens” is false because the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers of the Constitution did not so define a “citizens at birth” and there does not exist any evidence that they did. Second, regardless of how a “citizen at birth” may be defined, the text of Article II specifically states “natural born Citizen,” not “Citizen at Birth” or some variant thereof. Additionally, while it is true that all “natural born Citizens” are “citizens at birth,” it does not follow that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.”

Source: [link to puzo1.blogspot.com]

Furthermore:

Now as to the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen,” here it is: A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. This is the settled definition of the clause under American national common law. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring); Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168-170 (1875); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (all confirmed Vattel’s Section 212 of The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) definition of the “natural-born citizens” who “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”). This is the only definition of the clause that has ever existed and which has been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court. The conditions of being born in the country to “citizen” parents are both necessary and sufficient conditions of being a “natural born Citizen.” The definition of a “natural born Citizen” therefore excludes anyone who is either not born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) or not born to parents (both parents) who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth or both.

EXACTLY~~~~~~Can we get back to what is WRITTEN in the Constitution? There is a difference between born citizen and Natural born citizen. I don't care WHO is running.

Yes, citizenship but not natural born.

STOP IT WITH THE FIVE YEARS. That is an error by the O.P. but in no way invalidates his major premise that Harris is not eligible:

Now as to the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen,” here it is: A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

It takes 5 years, minimum, to become a US citizen.

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

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.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

Yes, citizenship but not natural born. Didn't you learn anything during the obuma faux presidency?

Last Edited by truthwillsetyoufreeagain on 08/11/2020 08:42 PM

That was conferred for certain years after WW2

Was not always the policy

The Presidency requires MORE than CITIZENSHIP !

They MUST BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN... meaning at least one and preferable both parents were citizens when they were born !

What’s to prevent people that HaTE The USA from birthing babies in the USA as tourists ... then qualifying for political office?

We do t need that

The parents have to be legal naturalized citizens

Thank you, Willie!

Your opinion is always a breath of fresh cocaine..err...air!

The Founding Fathers were smarter than you think. They thought about that and addressed it. Those who were US Citizens at the time of the adoption of this Constitution were included:

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.

As long as TRUMP's mother was a US Citizen at the time of his birth he would absoluteley meet the requirements.

Wrong.

[link to immigration-law.freeadvice.com (secure)]

How long does it take to become a US citizen?

Once your application for naturalization is filed, the approval time to become a US citizen varies by person and location. The short answer is that it can take anywhere from 5 to 8 months between application and interview. If you live in an area with heavy immigrant populations, it is not unusual to wait 2 years or more to become a US citizen.

Over kamala harris?

Please.

You just doubled down on a trump second term.

AND, don't ever come at us with the B.S. that because people got away with it before that this now makes it right.

LEGAL PRECEDENT IS A SCOURGE and does not trump THE TRUTH or the REAL LAW.

article II requires a president be a natural born citizen.... meaning she must be born here and both parents must be us citizens at the time of birth.

.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

This case concerned Mrs. Minor, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

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.

article II makes an exception for that... with the clause.. “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”

.

Formal logic at glp? Lol. Pearls and swine bro.

you can lie all you like but that is not the definition of natural born citizen.

.

LMBO!


You guys think theres gonna be an election.

Cute