“NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART” | by Joseph DeMaio | @ ThePostEmail.com
(Jun. 16, 2023) — Every now and then a “left field” idea strikes your humble servant. The term “left field” is used because to many, the idea would seem so far-fetched and improbable that it could never come to pass in reality. But the only way to ensure failure is to forego the attempt altogether.
Such ideas have in prior posts here at The P&E included (1) a proposal that after his second term ended, Obama waive confidentiality under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) so that his purported birth hospital in Hawai’i could confirm (or deny) his claim of birth in Honolulu; (2) that as “reparations” for the damages wrought upon the nation by Brandon and his storm troopers, a one-time tax surcharge in the amount of one-third of their 2020 gross income be levied upon all registered Democrats; and (3) a repeat in 2023 of the tax surcharge proposal of 2017, but reflecting a compounding for the additional damage done, increasing the surcharge amount equal to one- half of their 2022 gross income.
In candor, despite the appeal of these proposals, none have come to fruition. However, the present “Modest Proposal 4.0” takes a slightly different tack as a result of the rapidly declining ability of Brandon to fulfill the duties of the presidency, even modest ones like walking upright. One more fall like the one he took while riding his bicycle or when he fell at the Air Force Academy or the next time he deplanes or tries to board Air Force One could be fatal: after all, the guy is 80 years old, going on 113. Never mind that his brain is vanilla yogurt, his physical abilities are minimal, and rapidly declining.
Indeed, even the Democrats are muttering aloud that he should not be their candidate for the 2024 general election. Again, another physical mishap – if not immediately incapacitating – could rapidly evolve into an inevitable resignation without regard to the other potential for a resignation based on the “Burisma Tapes.” The following scenario assumes that he actually resigns either prior to another fall and resulting incapacitation or fully documented proof – which apparently we do not yet have – that he took a bribe while vice president.
Under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, in the event of the death or resignation of a President, “the Vice President shall become president.” This amendment came as a result of the assassination of President Kennedy and the surrounding confusion of swearing in then Vice-President Lyndon Johnson.
Thus, assuming that following the announcement of his resignation, there would be a short period of time before Kamala Harris was actually sworn in as President – and here is where Modest Proposal 4.0 ventures out onto the left field warning track – Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy could file a court challenge to the constitutional eligibility of Harris.
As faithful P&E readers are well aware, Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution mandates that only a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) may serve as President. As readers also know, there is a continuing debate over whether Harris is an nbC because, although she was born in Oakland, California, the evidence is that neither of her parents were U.S. citizens at that time. Some contend that if one is merely a “citizen at birth” or a “citizen by birth” with no need for further naturalization proceedings, such satisfies the nbC requirement. Others contend that the definition articulated in § 212 of Emer de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations,” where an nbC is defined as a person born in a country to parents who are already citizens, controls.
In this regard, under the Supreme Court decision in Minor v. Happersett, and the principles of § 212 of de Vattel’s treatise upon which the Founders relied when drafting the Constitution, Harris is very likely not a natural born Citizen as contemplated by the Founders. The Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) and others, of course, have a different view…, but they did not draft the Constitution.
If McCarthy had the courage to formally challenge her eligibility – at this point, a huge assumption – then, for the first time since then-Vice President Michael Pence forfeited the chance to act, and thereby possibly contributed to the chaos on January 6, 2021 –, the person who is second in the statutory line of succession under 3 U.S.C. § 19 and possessed of legal “standing” could raise in court the issue of Harris’s eligibility to the presidency. … continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/06/16/a-modest-proposal-4-0/
# # #
My comment on the above article:
An excellent idea and article by Joe DeMaio.
Now all the readers here need to make a concerted effort to get this DeMaio article before McCarthy’s eyes ASAP so he can read it, think about it, discuss it, and plan for the day such events may happen. Also get it to other key leadership people in the House and to members of the conservative and freedom caucuses. No need to bother with the Senate leadership as I see this, other than FYI, as they would not have any say in it, as I understand the process. So as we say … spread the word.
Incidentally, I believe that Kamala Harris could be challenged also on her simple basic “Citizen” at birth claim (aka Citizen at/by Birth), in addition to the constitutional “natural born Citizen” at birth claim. I do not believe she is even a “Citizen” at birth. She may may now be a basic Citizen having gained U.S. Citizenship later by marriage or some other method later in life depending on when her father naturalized and if Kamala was still a minor child when he naturalized. But I believe she did not gain U.S. Citizenship at birth either under the correct original intent and purpose of the 14th Amendment or under the Wong Kim Ark (1898) SCOTUS decision.
Per the 14th Amendment original intent meaning, she was not born “subject to the [full political] jurisdiction” of the United States since her parents were foreign nationals who were merely sojourning here on student VISAs.
And per the Wong Kim Ark (1898) SCOTUS decision, neither parent was a permanent resident or legally politically domiciled in the USA. And the Wong Kim Ark (1898) decision only grants “Citizen at Birth” status to a person born in the USA to parents who are legally domiciled here, which in the case of WKA (1898) SCOTUS decision both parents were and in the case of Kamala Harris both parents were not.
Thus, if McCarthy (if he had the courage) brought such a challenge to Kamala Harris, a lot of erroneous progressive citizenship law interpretations could be looked at and straightened out by the U.S. Supreme Court, using original intent and purposes of the applicable citizenship terms, and prior SCOTUS decisions and precedence, if they would have the courage to do it.
“Bravo Zulu!” to Joe DeMaio for another excellent article and idea. I for one will start circulating it and others reading here should too.
CDR Charles Kerchner (Retired)
Author: Natural Born Citizen
https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Born-Citizen-Presidential-Qualification/dp/B0C3YD377J/
http://www.kerchner.com/books/naturalborncitizen.htm
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org
Other suggested reading and viewing on being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States:
1. Buy and then read my new book, “Natural Born Citizen” via: http://www.kerchner.com/books/catalog.htm … or … http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0C3YD377J/genealogicalrese
2. Read, download, and print a PDF copy of this White Paper by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf
3. A chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
4. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal-natural-born-citizen-nbc-obama-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-the-usa-2/ or http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html
5. Read this essay regarding the constitutional term “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. “Natural born Citizens” are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. Adjectives mean something. All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/
6. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/
7. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a Natural Born Citizen: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/
8. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html or https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts
9. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.kerchner.com/videos/natural-born-citizen-part-1-by-dr-herb-titus.mp4 and http://www.kerchner.com/videos/natural-born-citizen-part-2-by-dr-herb-titus.mp4
10. Read the dozen of legal essays and court briefs written by constitutional and citizenship expert Attorney Mario Apuzzo on being a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and the pretenders and usurpers in three major political parties (Democrat, Republican, and Socialist parties) – who invalidly claimed such birth status – at his legal blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
11. Read online or download and save dozens of historical papers and articles written over time, some over 200 years ago, describing what a “natural born Citizen” of the United States is to constitutional standards: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3301209/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Citizen-Meaning-to-Constitutional-Standards
CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.