Kamala Harris Is Not Eligible To Be President - The Natural Born Citizen Requirement.
In January 2019, Democrat hopeful Kamala Harris announced her candidacy to be President of the United States. But, there's one glaring problem. Kamala Harris is not legally eligible to be President or Vice President.
[Edit 2020-08-12 ] In August of 2020, Joe Biden announced Kamala Harris as his pick for Vice President. Once again, this issue becomes relevant.
The U.S. Constitution says that "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." The Constitution was later amended to extend this requirement to the Vice President.
All persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution are long dead. Only the "natural born citizen" qualification remains in practical effect.
The key question is whether Kamala Harris is a "natural born citizen" of the United States. According to the clearly written definition, which has been acknowledged for over two centuries, if one of her parents was not a US Citizen at the time of her birth, she is not a natural born citizen.
When one examines the definition of the term and the purpose for including it in the Constitution, this becomes clear.
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." --James Wilson, Of the Study of Law in the United States, 1790
What is the source of the term, "natural born citizen"? It is defined in the internationally published reference book, "Law of Nations", penned by Emmerich de Vattel in 1758. The definition states:
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations
This is the one and only definition of the term, understood in international and US law, that existed when the Constitution was crafted. Its meaning has remained consistent for centuries as recognized by US law.
"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787." - Constitution Society regarding "Law of Nations"
Did The Framers Rely Upon Law of Nations?
The historical record shows that "Law of Nations" was a primary reference used to craft the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. In 1775, as the Founders determined to create their own nation from scratch, Benjamin Franklin received three copies of the original French edition from the editor Dumas for use by the Continental Congress.
"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress..." - Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
"Law of Nations" was in use by many other nations as well, printed in several languages including French, English and German, to ensure heads of state understood principles and language to be used in international relations. It is still in print today as a reference book and is still used by the Supreme Court in Constitutional rulings. [i]
By 1780, "Law of Nations" was a standard textbook in American universities. By 1787, it was well understood by the Framers of the Constitution and the nation as a whole. There was no need to debate the meaning of "natural born citizen" as the Framers crafted the Constitution. It was a commonly understood term.
Law of Nations is the only reference book named in the Constitution itself, empowering the Federal Government to enforce its clauses:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; - US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8
Kamala Harris Is Not A Natural Born Citizen
Kamala Harris was born October 20, 1964, in Oakland, California. Her mother was a Tamil Indian, her father a Jamaican. Both were immigrants who had not naturalized, thus were not citizens, when Kamala was born.
As the definition of "natural born citizen" states, the person must be born to parents who are citizens.
This fact alone is enough to conclude, without question, that Harris is not eligible to be President or Vice President of the United States.
You could stop reading at this point. You have the correct answer.
The law will be upheld, Harris will be barred from taking office, everything works out. Right?
Perhaps not. You may have noticed, there is a great effort afoot to concoct alternate meanings of the term and confuse the issue to allow candidates such as Harris to take office. This strategy worked for Barack Hussein Obama, so it will be used again.
That's right, Mr. Obama also could not qualify and he knew it. His father was not a US Citizen when he was born. So, his teams of lawyers spent years blocking court cases that tried to resolve his eligibility long after he was allowed to take office. The fight began when a Democrat attorney, Philip Berg, attempted to force his own Party to vet their candidate's eligibility. [ii] See the problem?
Why A Natural Born Citizen?
So, what does it matter, this difference between merely being born a citizen or meeting the much more strict requirements of a "natural born citizen"? The person is an American either way, right? The Framers of the Constitution understood the difference and so should we.
A person born an American, with a foreign parent, is born subject to the laws of another nation. Born in America to Mexican parents? The child is born under Mexican as well as American jurisdiction. The child is born with foreign allegiance. That can create legal and personal conflict in times of war.
The Framers understood that a person born in the USA to a British father would be a British subject, according to British law. If that person rose to the rank of Commander in Chief of the American military and went to war against England or its vassal states, that person would commit treason against his King. His motives may be conflicted and he would certainly be treated differently from regular prisoners of war if captured. He would be hanged for treason.
In the War of 1812, when America fought to finally throw off British common law claims over Americans, the US required all officers on US ships and 2/3 of the sailors to be natural born citizens of the USA. They could not have a foreign parent. Thus, they could engage in war without conflicting loyalties or threat of hanging for treason.
In peacetime, the President with foreign affinity may use his office to conduct affairs more favorably to his preferred foreign state instead of the USA. He may hold notions such as "Dreams from my Father", a love and loyalty to the Father's nation and ideology.
Is the President loyal to the Russians because of a Russian father? Perhaps loyal to Marxist or Islamic ideology because of the ideological loyalties of a Father who had not embraced Americanism and passed it down? The office of President allows a lot of leeway to favor those non-American loyalties and further their interests at the expense of America.
The President with mixed loyalties has great power to do harm. So, yes, this natural born citizen requirement is as important today as it was when written into the Constitution.
Destroying The Constitution By Precedent
The "fundamental transformation" of the USA into ... something else ... requires systematic destruction of the Constitution. It was crafted, after all, to shield Americans from the well known harms inflicted by unrestrained governments against their own people. So, it must be made unenforceable if wanton use of power is to prevail.
If they can't change the Constitution by amending it, the Left's other strategy is to simply ignore it, to steamroll over it, to weave a web of words to confuse issues when people notice they have done so. Nowhere has this been more clear than the unlawful installation of Barack Obama into the office of President.
Not only was the "natural born citizen" requirement violated, so was the 20th Amendment.
"If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified" – US Constitution, Amendment 20
Barack Obama was allowed to take office even as his lawyers worked frantically to prevent his qualifications from being resolved. That was, literally, a coup d'etat, the illegal taking of power over the United States.
And who can now point this out, or explain why Kamala Harris is not legally eligible, without being ridiculed as a "birther"? The term is designed to dismiss any rational examination of the matter. The term is used to shut down discussion of the fact that Harris, like Obama, is not eligible.
Thus, the Constitution's protection against dual loyalties in the President has been destroyed, by the precedent of Obama taking office and the ridicule or silencing of anyone pointing out the facts of the matter. The Big Lie has become "social truth". Fait accompli.
You have seen the definition of "natural born citizen". You know EXACTLY what it means.
So, what about all those other notions presented to confuse the issue? Wikipedia and blog sites like Politifact are full of them. Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service wrote a wonderful propaganda piece to give cover to Obama illegally taking office and his deceptions are now giving cover to Kamala Harris. Even conservative pundits have gotten this wrong, including Mark Levin. So, let's examine the bogus arguments bouncing around in their echo chamber and knock them down one by one.
First, though, bear in mind the Democrats understood they had a problem getting Obama into office. For several years prior to his candidacy being announced, they tried to legislatively change or sideline the natural born citizen requirement via Congressional action. [iii] They apparently knew they would be running a candidate who was not eligible. When these efforts failed, they resorted to the "big lie" technique, to confuse the public.
Now, let's examine the specific arguments designed to confuse the issue.
Deception 1) Someone Born A Citizen Is A Natural Born Citizen
The notion is that someone who did not have to naturalize to become a citizen is a natural born citizen. They were born a citizen. Good enough, right?
You have already read the definition, above, so you know this is not true if one of the parents is a non-citizen. That parent may pass down foreign citizenship. The Framers who wrote the Constitution also understood this.
Alexander Hamilton had delivered to the Constitutional Convention a proposed draft of the US Constitution. His proposal was that the President must be "a citizen of one of the states or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States". [iv]
In response to this proposal, Congress was warned that it would open the Presidency to the possibility of foreign influence.
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." - Chief Justice John Jay
When John Jay wrote "foreigners", he meant anyone with foreign allegiance. That would include someone born to a foreign parent as a US Citizen.
Recognizing the danger, Congress rejected the proposal of "born a citizen", and instead inserted the much more strict requirement of a "natural born citizen". They are not the same thing, as anyone reading the definition clearly understands. The correct understanding has been known throughout US history until it recently became politically inconvenient.
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776." - David Ramsay, 1789, Dissertation on the nature of citizenship
"If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, "no person, except a native-born citizen"; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth." - "NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT" (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905))
"Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." - John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section
"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states." - The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
Deception 2) Naturalization Act of 1790
Some deceivers like to claim that when the Constitution was written, the Founders did not have a clear meaning of "natural born citizen" and wanted it to be given meaning later by courts or Congress. You have already seen the exact definition in "Law of Nations", so you know this is a lie. The lie was intended to prepare you to accept this next bogus argument.
Shortly after ratifying the Constitution, Congress made its first round of naturalization rules. That is, who would be made a citizen by law. They also touched on the issue of "natural born citizen".
The 1790 Naturalization Act stated that "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens". This added a temporary consideration that was not in the Constitutionally understood meaning, otherwise it would have been redundant. It only allowed those children to be "considered as" natural born citizens, because they are not.
Deceivers like to claim that the 1790 Naturalization Act gave meaning to the term "natural born citizen". Really? Did the Founders intend for the Presidential qualification to be:
1) "children of citizens"
2) "born beyond sea" (not on US soil)
Well, that would disqualify Obama, Harris and others due to a non-citizen parent. It would also disqualify ALL other Presidents who, in fact, were born on US soil. The silliness is too great to contemplate without a good chuckle.
The 1790 Act was repealed just five years later in 1795, eliminating that extended consideration. Since then, it has had no legal effect. But why had it been included in the first naturalization act?
Some of the Founders spent much time abroad, with their families, as Ambassadors. Perhaps they did not want to exclude their own children from Presidential eligibility. But, by 1795, the danger was better understood and the extended consideration was removed.
All that remains is the Constitutional natural born citizen, defined in Law of Nations.
Deception 3) US Constitution, 14th Amendment
The US Constitution was amended to make citizens out of freed slaves, with the following language. It says nothing about "natural born citizen" status, only citizenship.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." - US Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1
Those referring to the 14th Amendment assert that a person who is a citizen by birth is a natural born citizen. You already know this is not true, by definition. So, the 14th Amendment is irrelevant to this issue.
The US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case incorrectly altered the intended meaning of the 14th Amendment by applying it to the children of foreigners born in the USA. This creates the "anchor baby" situation, in which foreigners race across the border to give birth, making their child a US Citizen and securing their residency in the USA. This is a perversion of the meaning of "jurisdiction" intended in the 14th Amendment.
In the Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out "that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro" and that "the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, AND citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States." Recall that children of foreigners, born in the USA, are also citizens or subjects of the nation of their parents. Therefore, they cannot become US Citizens under the 14th Amendment.
In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word "jurisdiction" under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean "the absolute and complete jurisdiction. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them."
Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the Amendment’s goal to "make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US," and if "the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen."
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." - Sen. Trumbell
To a man, among the framers the premise behind "within the jurisdiction thereof" was that all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the US; thus, not only must a child be born on US soil (jus soli) but born within the complete allegiance of the US politically and not merely under its laws.
So, even the argument that birth on US soil to a foreign parent makes one a US Citizen is false. It was a corrupted act by the US Supreme Court, defying the intent of the Constitution, that made it an accepted (yet still unlawful) practice.
Deception 4) 8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
This body of law crafts some extra circumstances by which a person may be considered a US Citizen by birth or happenstance. As you now know, to be born a citizen does not make someone a "natural born citizen".
This body of law never touches on the issue of "natural born citizen" status. It is irrelevant to the question of Presidential eligibility.
Deception 5) Wong Kim Ark
The narrow focus of this court case was whether Mr. Ark, a child of Chinese subjects, born in the United States, "becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution". [v]
Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant to the matter of Presidential eligibility since, as you now know, to be born a citizen is not the definition of a "natural born citizen". Wong Kim Ark's parents were not US Citizens, therefore he could not have been a "natural born citizen" of the United States. The Wong Kim Ark case never examined the natural born citizen issue.
The Judge in this case ruled he was a "citizen" by birth, according to the 14th Amendment.
The ruling was blatantly incorrect, as you know from reading the intent behind the 14th Amendment. The court relied upon an interpretation of "jurisdiction" that violated the clearly explained meaning of that word. If the parents were foreign subjects, as Mr. Ark's were, then they were not under sole US "jurisdiction" in the manner intended by the authors of the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment was not intended to make citizens of the children of foreign subjects who are born on US soil. Yet, the incorrect Wong KimArk ruling became a foundation for the "anchor baby" policy that has made citizens of so many people born of foreign parents who are not, according to the Constitution, entitled to citizenship.
Deception 6) Natural Born Subjects (English Common Law)
"Natural born Citizen" sounds so similar to "Natural born Subject" that many deceivers like to focus on what is a "natural born". They refer to English Common Law, that explains who is a natural born subject to the King, to attribute its meaning to natural born citizens.
You already know where the definition of "natural born citizen" is found – in the reference book "Law of Nations". It is spelled out right there. It does not exist in English common law.
The meanings of "citizen" and "subject" are completely different. The Constitution was not written to make us "subjects" to any King. The War for Independence was fought to free us of that – and the War of 1812 to force Britain to stop applying English common law to Americans. English common law has no relevance to this issue.
The American form of government threw off the status of 'subject' and made Americans into 'citizens' of their nation instead.
"The common law of England is not the common law of these states." - George Mason, author of the Bill of Rights
To this day, the American legal system recognizes "Law of Nations" as a foundation of American common law. [vi]
Deception 7) Law of Nations Did Not Use The Words "natural born citizen" in 1787
Emerich de Vattel was a Swiss-born international lawyer. He wrote his most famous legal treatise, "Law of Nations", in 1758, in French. That was the international language of the time.
"Law of Nations" was translated into many languages and used in many nations as a legal guide book. The first English translation was in 1760.
Benjamin Franklin received three copies of the French edition from the editor Dumas in 1775 for use by Franklin and the Continental Congress. Many of the Founders spoke French so this edition was desirable as the most accurate. It explained in French what a natural born citizen is.
Original French: "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
Literal translation: "The natural, or indigenous, are those who are born in the country, of parents who are citizens"
This is the French language description of "natural citizens", which in English we call "natural born citizens". The standardized English translation makes this clear.
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations, 1797 English Translation, corrected errors in the 1760 edition. [vii]
While it is correct to say the edition used by Congress did not include the EXACT phrase "natural born citizen", that is merely saying it was written in French using French words. The requirements to qualify as a natural born citizen are identical, no matter what language the definition is written in. The deceiver's game is exposed.
Deception 8) Constitution Only Recognizes Two Types of Citizen
Another assertion bandied about is that the Constitution only recognizes two types of citizenship, a citizen by birth or a naturalized citizen. This, too, is false. In fact, the only citizenship differentiation is:
1) Citizen - whether by birth or naturalization, all citizens share exactly the same Rights and privileges under the Constitution.
2) Natural Born Citizen - Only this narrow subset of citizens is eligible to be President, if the person meets the strict requirements spelled out in "Law of Nations": "born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
"...the Constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United states as native and naturalized. Our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified–that of not being eligible to the presidency of the United States. The only exception to the rule is expressed in the Constitution." - The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
If Kamala Harris was born to a non-citizen parent, she can not qualify to be President.
Deception 9) President Chester Arthur (1881 - 1885)
Prior to Barack Obama, only one other President ws allowed to take office who was not a citizen at the time the Constitution was crafted and who was born to a non-Citizen Father. Those crying "birther" like to point out that Arthur was allowed to be President, so the non-citizen Father is not really an issue.
Chester Arthur's eligibility was also questioned - but he burned his family documents to prevent the matter from being legally resolved, much as Obama had teams of lawyers preventing "discovery" of his own family documents that would have resolved the issue.
Arthur and his associates controlled the narrative of the argument, keeping it focused on the place of his birth that, thanks to destruction of the documents, could not legally be resolved. They managed to keep attention away from his Father's date of naturalization. Chester Arthur served as Vice President and later assumed the office of President when President Garfield was assassinated.
Defending the Constitution – What You Can Do
You now understand why Kamala Harris is not legally eligible to be President. She had at least one non-citizen parent when she was born. Barack Obama, as well, was allowed to illegally assume the office of President despite the same disqualification. The Constitution has been subverted to allow persons born with foreign allegiance to become America's Commander in Chief.
What will you do about it?
For starters, educate others on this subject. Show them this article. Use it as a reference to knock down the deceptions.
Make sure your Senators and Representatives see this article! Tell your friends and relatives to pressure them to raise the subject in Congress, to not allow Kamala Harris to illegally take office.
You, too, can become an Intel Warrior!
[i] US Supreme Court, ARIZONA ET AL v. UNITED STATES (2012) "As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated: "The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; and whoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effectual." The Law of Nations, bk. II, ch. VII, §94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds. 2008)."
[ii] Philip Berg Case http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/27/ "Instead of satisfying Plaintiff and the general public’s concerns regarding Obama’s citizenship status, or lack thereof, Obama and the DNC have chosen to litigate the matters in lieu of providing what should be simple proof. Defendants have filed two  Motions to Dismiss and a Motion for a Protective Order instead of simply solving the matters and providing the proof verifying Obama’s citizenship status." Surrick dismissed the case, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the suit because he did not face direct harm even if the allegations were true. Following cases were also dismissed for lack of standing, refusing to address the Constitutional issue being raised.
[iii] Attempts to legislatively remove the natural born citizen requirement in the run-up to Barack Obama's candidacy
June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., brought HJR 59. It was intended 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-Mich., brought HJR67, 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-Okla., brought S.B. 2128 to “try to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural born citizen requirement.” But it defined NBC as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States,” which was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution.
Sept. 15, 2004, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., brought HJR 104, “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, Conyers, D-Mich., HJR2, the same as Rohrabacher’s. Feb. 1, 2005, HJR15, Rohrabacher, to require only 20 years citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.
April 14, 2005, Snyder, HJR42, requiring 35 years’ citizenship.
Feb. 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., tried to attach to SB 2678, Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what “natural-born citizen” includes. Obama and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors.
[iv] The Life of Alexander Hamilton, Volume 2, John Church Hamilton, D. Appleton & Company, 1841
Page 481 - Hamilton gives a long speech on June 18, 1787 proposing the new government
Page 490 - Hamilton is described as providing the entire 10 articles of the plan that, if implemented, would be a full Constitution.
Page 502 - Ninth Article, providing the President must be "a citizen of one of the states or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States"
[v] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, Decided: March 28, 1898
Wong Kim Ark is a "citizen" of the United States https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
[vi] "The law of nations forms an integral part of the common law, and a review of the history surrounding the adoption of the Constitution demonstrates that it became a part of the common law of the United States upon the adoption of the Constitution." -- Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 -- Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1980
[vii] Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature of Natural Law and on Luxury (LF ed.)