Is Kamala Harris eligible to be Joe Biden’s VP? | by Gary Wilmott | @AmericanThinker
Is Kamala Harris a natural born citizen?
It is no secret that Harris wants to be Joe Biden’s vice president. The junior senator from California clearly sees an opening to her real objective: the presidency of the United States. With Biden surprisingly outlasting the other anti-American socialist candidates, Harris recognizes that Biden’s age and declining cognitive abilities pose a glorious opportunity to resurrect her presidential ambitions. After all, there is an good chance that the bumbling, incoherent Biden might have to resign or be removed in his first term and his V.P. would succeed him. Even if Biden managed to miraculously finish his first term, it is unlikely that he would or could run for a second.
Harris would love to “back door” her way into the presidency, especially given the fact that her vacuous campaign was an unmitigated disaster, and any future presidential ambitions looked to be a virtual impossibility only a few months ago.
But not so fast. Harris is constitutionally ineligible to be VPOTUS (12th Amendment) or POTUS (Article 2). She is not — nor can she ever be — a natural born citizen, the highest standard of citizenship mandated by the Constitution for the president and commander-in-chief. The Founding Fathers wanted a higher standard of citizenship for the POTUS because they did not want any competing allegiances with foreign governments.
U.S. Senator Kamala Harris is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen‘ of USA – NOT Eligible to be the Vice President, or the President and Commander-in-Chief of Our Military, per U.S. Constitution
Neither of Senator Kamala Harris’ parents were U.S. Citizens when Kamala was born in 1964 in CA. Kamala Harris was born to a Jamaican Citizen father (minus one stool leg) and to a Citizen of India mother (minus the 2nd stool leg). They both were sojourning in the USA on temporary VISA’s. Thus she was born with multiple citizenship and allegiance to a foreign country, divided allegiance at birth.
Senator Kamala Harris’ staff has refused to answer any questions regarding the citizenship status of her parents when she was born. The normal path to becoming a naturalized U.S. Citizen takes five years. Kamala Harris was born in 1964. Her father emigrated from Jamaica to the USA in 1961. Her mother emigrated from India to the USA in 1960. Thus there was not sufficient time for either of Kamala’s parents to become naturalized U.S. Citizens. Kamala’s father eventually became a naturalized U.S. Citizen per his bio. It is not known at this time if Kamala’s mother ever became a naturalized U.S. Citizen. She moved to Canada with Kamala when Kamala was about seven years old. It is possible that Kamala’s mother might have naturalized at some point as a Canadian citizen. Kamala Harris’ mother is now deceased. As I said in the first sentence, Senator Harris is not being transparent on this issue and her office staff has refused to answer any questions on this subject. Given Kamala Harris’ year of birth, and her parents emigration years, she was born in the USA to two foreign nationals, and thus inherited the citizenship of another country when she was born, in addition to being considered to be a basic Citizen of the United States under Positive Law, by being born in the USA to aliens legally living here. Thus Senator Kamala Harris was born with citizenship and required allegiance at birth to more than one country. She is a dual-Citizen and was born with foreign influence on her by birth by required allegiance at birth to another country, other than the USA. This is hardly what the founders and framers intended when they selected the “natural born Citizen” requirement for the person who would in the future be permitted to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military, once the founding generation was gone. And, per the 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, she cannot serve as the Vice President either, for the same reasons.
Some other politicians besides Kamala Harris (D) in the two major political parties who have been mentioned for future election to high national political office, who are also not a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards are: Marco Rubio (R), Ted Cruz (R), Bobby Jindal (R), and Nikki Haley (R). Both major political parties are choosing to ignore the founders and framers intent and understanding of what a “natural born Citizen” is in order to run candidates that they believe are very marketable political candidates. This started in a major way in the 2008 election cycle with Obama vs McCain.
Former Perkins Coie Partner, Obama White House Counsel Details Release of “Long-Form” Birth Certificate Image | by Sharon Rondeau | @ ThePostEmail.com
(Mar. 5, 2019) — On Monday, former White House Counsel Robert Bauer, also formerly of the law firm Perkins Coie, published a lengthy article at The Atlantic arguing that former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen last week made a compelling case that Donald Trump is both a “con man” and “a racist.”
The article is titled, “Michael Cohen Reminded Us Why Trump’s Birtherism Matters” and invokes Trump’s demand, voiced early in 2011, that the White House release proof that Obama was born in the United States and was therefore presumably eligible to the office of president, to demonstrate Trump’s alleged racism.
Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president and commander-in-chief be a “natural born Citizen.” While much controversy has ensued over more than a century as to the exact meaning of the term as intended by the Framers, nearly all Americans understand that a person born outside the United States and later naturalized as a U.S. citizen cannot serve as president.
Some legal scholars go further, insisting that a birth on U.S. soil is not enough to qualify and that a candidate’s parents must have been U.S. citizens at the time of the child and future candidate’s birth. That view is supported by the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Minor v. Happersett wherein the majority opinion stated that it was “never doubted” that a person born in the country to U.S.-citizen parents is a “natural born Citizen.” As to other situations, the court wrote, “there have been doubts.”
Some reportage during Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign suggested he was “an immigrant” to the U.S. amid a myriad of contradictory reports as to his place of birth and citizenship status which were never reconciled.
For a number of years, and contrary to a number of credible news reports as well as a 1991 biography released by Obama’s first literary agent, Obama has claimed he was born in Honolulu, HI on August 4, 1961 at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children. In the early stages of his 2008 presidential campaign, at least three sources reported him as having been born at Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, with some later amending their reports to say he was born at Kapiolani.
In addition to questions about his birthplace, Obama has claimed a father who was never a U.S. citizen. On his 2008 campaign website, “FighttheSmears,” Obama claimed that he “became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment” in response to the “lie” that he was not a “natural born Citizen.”
As Bauer noted in his article, he was White House counsel when an alleged “long-form” birth certificate image, reportedly obtained in the form of two certified copies by Judith Corley, Obama’s personal lawyer and also of Perkins Coie, from the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) on April 27, 2011.
The event was widely reported by the mainstream media. During a press conference following the release of the image, Obama stated that the White House had “provided additional information today about the site of my birth.” He did not hold a document in his hand, nor was one displayed in the background or held by anyone else as he spoke.
Within hours and the following days, a number of published experts in the field of computer graphics and Internet engineering declared the “long-form” birth certificate image to be a forgery. Those claims eventually led to a request from 242 constituents of then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio for an investigation to protect the integrity of their votes in the 2012 election in the event the reports of forgery proved accurate. …
My observation and comment about a point Attorney Robert Bauer said in his new article:
I noted that Bauer in his article put great weight and emphasis on the earlier released short-form CERTIFICATION of Live Birth document. That document was only shown in June 2008 to the general public as a computer image. It was also proven to be a computer generated forgery. That statement by Bauer is interesting since to my knowledge Hawaii officials have never validated in any way the short-form document or the image of it shown online in June 2008 … nor have they even ever stated or verified that they issued a short-form CERTIFICATION of Live Birth document to Obama or his attorneys or agents in the spring of 2008, as was claimed by Obama as to when he got it. When one’s story is a lie, as is Obama’s early life narrative and which is parroted by his various Consigliere, it is very hard to keep all the claimed “facts” in agreement over time. This has happened with Obama statements time and time again. Bauer is now claiming that the original forged short-form CERTIFICATION of Live Birth form released in June 2008 is more official and important than is the long-form CERTIFICATE of Live Birth released in April 2011. That in itself, over and beyond the images being computer generated forged images, is an untruth unto itself.
Barack Hussein Obama II may or may not be “born a Citizen” of the United States depending on what the 1961 contemporaneous birth registration documents sealed in Hawaii reveal. And Americans have good reason to be greatly concerned about the truth as to where he was physically born as opposed to where his birth may have been falsely registered by his maternal grandmother as occurring in Hawaii as this Catalog of Evidence details. But he can never be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States since his father was a foreigner, a British Subject who was never a U.S. Citizen and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Since his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama was born a British Subject. The founders and framers are probably rolling over in their graves knowing this person was sworn in as the putative President and Commander of our military. Adjectives mean something. Especially in terms in the Constitution and must not be ignored.
The founders rejected acquisition of Citizenship by birth on the soil without consideration as to who were the parents. That is clear from the history and evolution of the writing the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which specifies who can be President and Commander in Chief of the military.
Only a “natural born Citizen” can be the President of the USA and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the USA and is thus constitutionally not eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military.