Kamala Harris?

Twisted

Well-known member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
15,057
Reaction score
1,056
Points
113
The Constitution is meaningless today. It's been meaningless for years.

Barack (Barry Sotero) Obama became the first non-natural-born to be president, a clear violation of the constitution.

The Republicans have fielded many who are not natural-born. Spiro Agnew was not and became VP. He resigned and many wonder was it because he was not qualified to be president.

Now we have Harris, who is not natural-born.

Nobody cares and nobody wants to care.
 
The Constitution is meaningless today. It's been meaningless for years.

Barack (Barry Sotero) Obama became the first non-natural-born to be president, a clear violation of the constitution.

The Republicans have fielded many who are not natural-born. Spiro Agnew was not and became VP. He resigned and many wonder was it because he was not qualified to be president.

Now we have Harris, who is not natural-born.

Nobody cares and nobody wants to care.

Are you sure you got that correct about Kamala Harris? She was born in the U.S. - Any one born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the United States according to the 14th amendment. Her parents' citizenship is irrelevant.
 
Are you sure you got that correct about Kamala Harris? She was born in the U.S. - Any one born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the United States according to the 14th amendment. Her parents' citizenship is irrelevant.
Of course, there is an important distinction to be made: someone who is a naturalized citizen is ineligible to serve as president. The "natural born citizen" clause in the American constitution has never been defined, but the consensus is that it means someone who was born in the U.S.

Some notable exceptions and edge cases:

  • Anyone who was a citizen of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of the constitution, was 35 years old or older, and a resident for at least 14 years, per Article 2, Section 1
  • Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a state; he was eligible.
  • John McCain was born to American citizens on an American naval base in the Panama Canal Zone. The law conferred U.S. citizenship retroactively on anyone born in Panama to at least one American parent. The Senate unanimously agreed that he was a natural born citizen. There were, however, some opinions that he was a natural citizen of Panama, not the United States. He lost the 2008 presidential election and returned to the Senate, so the question, left undetermined, is moot.
  • Barack Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a British-Kenyan father, two years after Hawaii became a state. The "birther" conspiracy theory hinges on whether he was actually born in Hawaii--if so, then his natural citizenship is unquestionable.
  • Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was American, and his father was then a citizen of Cuba; hence he had dual Canadian-American citizenship from birth. He formally renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014 prior to his presidential campaign. While his eligibility was questioned, it was also legally challenged several times, all unsuccessfully. Therefore, Cruz can be deemed a natural born U.S. citizen by virtue of his birth to an American parent.

In Kamala Harris' case, there's really no question. She was born to American residents on American soil. The fact that her parents were both immigrants is legally irrelevant to her own citizenship.
 
More ignorance on this thread than should be allowed by law! Of course, I don't expect any Canadian to have a clue. I'd post history about English law and the meaning and reason our Founders made natural-born a requirement for the office but it would just be throwing gold to pigs.
 
There are plenty of legitimate policy problems with Kamala that debating her American status will just lose traction in fighting against her.
 
There are plenty of legitimate policy problems with Kamala that debating her American status will just lose traction in fighting against her.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read!

So let's waste time about a person's "policy" when they aren't even qualified to run for the office!
 
More ignorance on this thread than should be allowed by law!
Yes, and as usual, it's all yours. You're pretty good at throwing out accusations and looking stupid, but apart from that, you're useless.
 
Yes, and as usual, it's all yours. You're pretty good at throwing out accusations and looking stupid, but apart from that, you're useless.
Sometimes, but not this time, farm boy.
 
Yes, of course, it's a waste of time for us to talk about Kamala's liberal policies and her persecution of pro-life Christians like David Daleiden. Instead, let's make fools of ourselves by alleging that a woman born in Oakland,California to parents who were American citizens is not a "natural-born citizen." That's the kind of stuff that makes all of us as fundamentalists look like morons who are not to be taken seriously. So by all means, let's keep it up and make ourselves totally irrelevant to the crucial debates going on in America today.

So Spiro Agnew, who was born in Baltimore, Maryland, was not a "natural-born citizen?" Come on now, really? I think we all need to stop and consider our need to defend and uphold the reputation of FFF as a source of reliable information, before we jump in here and post preposterous nonsense.
 
Sometimes, but not this time, farm boy.
If you're trying to change my mind, nimrod, you're failing at that, too.

Why is Kamala Harris not a natural born citizen? Explain using relevant law and legal precedent. If you can. Which I strongly doubt.

You're all bluster and no intelligence. You're so ignorant you just got shown up by a Canadian who knows more about your constitution than you do. What a windbag. You and UGC should get gay-married.
 
Instead, let's make fools of ourselves by alleging that a woman born in Oakland,California to parents who were American citizens is not a "natural-born citizen."
Harris' parents were, in fact, not yet citizens in 1964 when she was born. Which is irrelevant to her status as a "natural born citizen." The phrase isn't defined in the Constitution, but was well understood from English common law: a natural-born citizen was one born on English soil, regardless of the citizenship of his parents. The U.S. was, of course, an English territory prior to independence, and so this is the legal context in which the wording of the constitution needs to be understood.

There are three qualifications for president:

  • Be over 35: Harris is 55. Check.
  • Be a natural born citizen: Harris was born in California. Check.
  • Be resident in the U.S. for at least 14 years: Harris lived with her mother for a few years in Canada as a teenager, but has lived continuously in the U.S. since the early 1980s. Check.

That's the problem with conspiracy theories: They operate as a substitute for thought and distract from real issues by flooding the public square with stupidity.
 
Not to defend Twisted's position but I know a guy who set up a non profit around this one issue. Whenever I'm around him he goes on forever about the intricate details. Going off memory I think part of his argument was the definition of "natural born" as it stood under English common law. My eyes usually glaze over when he starts talking. It may have been an argument to take up several decades ago, but I don't see much difference between an America hating liberal whose parents were born outside U.S. vs. an America hating liberal whose parents were born inside U.S.
 
Of course, there is an important distinction to be made: someone who is a naturalized citizen is ineligible to serve as president. The "natural born citizen" clause in the American constitution has never been defined, but the consensus is that it means someone who was born in the U.S.

Some notable exceptions and edge cases:

  • Anyone who was a citizen of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of the constitution, was 35 years old or older, and a resident for at least 14 years, per Article 2, Section 1
  • Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became a state; he was eligible.
  • John McCain was born to American citizens on an American naval base in the Panama Canal Zone. The law conferred U.S. citizenship retroactively on anyone born in Panama to at least one American parent. The Senate unanimously agreed that he was a natural born citizen. There were, however, some opinions that he was a natural citizen of Panama, not the United States. He lost the 2008 presidential election and returned to the Senate, so the question, left undetermined, is moot.
  • Barack Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a British-Kenyan father, two years after Hawaii became a state. The "birther" conspiracy theory hinges on whether he was actually born in Hawaii--if so, then his natural citizenship is unquestionable.
  • Ted Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was American, and his father was then a citizen of Cuba; hence he had dual Canadian-American citizenship from birth. He formally renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014 prior to his presidential campaign. While his eligibility was questioned, it was also legally challenged several times, all unsuccessfully. Therefore, Cruz can be deemed a natural born U.S. citizen by virtue of his birth to an American parent.

In Kamala Harris' case, there's really no question. She was born to American residents on American soil. The fact that her parents were both immigrants is legally irrelevant to her own citizenship.

I didn't know about John McCain and the counter-birthers. I guess Sarah Palin and her family issues distracted me.
 
Uh, stop the presses - many Americans, including President Trump. are apparently questioning Kamala's constitutional qualifications to serve as President. In post #11 I implied that Twisted may have posted "preposterous nonsense" by implying that Kamala was not "natural born." Looks like I was wrong to imply that, so I hereby take it back. I still think it is preposterous nonsense to say Spiro Agnew was not a "natural-born citizen" but who knows, I may turn out to be wrong about that too.

Nothing I have said is meant as an endorsement of Kamala or her running mate Sleepy Joe. Sleepy Joe will almost certainly be removed from office early in his first term, for advanced senility, and then Kamala will be President. So it is certainly appropriate to put her under the magnifying glass to see what we are getting.
 
Uh, stop the presses - many Americans, including President Trump. are apparently questioning Kamala's constitutional qualifications to serve as President. In post #11 I implied that Twisted may have posted "preposterous nonsense" by implying that Kamala was not "natural born." Looks like I was wrong to imply that, so I hereby take it back.
Nah. I think you were right the first time.

Birther controversies are always stupid, and put forward by people who know nothing about actual policy. Witness Twisted's silence since I asked him to put up or shut up. "Um...ah...er...Post #582!"
 
Top