“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.”
United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President
shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
United States Constitution, 12th Amendment
Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to be Vice-President and is not eligible to be President. In legal fact, she is a usurper who is criminally in Federal Office by open conspiracy and violates the US Code and the Supreme Law of the Land (which is how Article 6 defines the US Constitution).
3 years after the birth of Kamala Harris, Kamala's mother was STILL a citizen of India and was NOT a United States citizen, but someone who was in the United States as a non-citizen on a VISA. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/foia/Shyamala_Gopalan_Harris.pdf
Kamala's father, Donald J. Harris, was a Jamaican at the time of her birth, and is alleged to have naturalized to the United States when Kamala was about 50 years old, but there has been no confirmation that I am aware of in regard to an actual naturalization. Even so, being born to a Jamaican National Citizen Father and an Indian National Citizen Mother AT THE TIME OF BIRTH, regardless of where she was born, DISQUALIFIES Kamala Harris as both Vice President and as potential President of the United States.
Kamala's father, Donald J. Harris, was a Jamaican at the time of her birth, and is alleged to have naturalized to the United States when Kamala was about 50 years old, but there has been no confirmation that I am aware of in regard to an actual naturalization. Even so, being born to a Jamaican National Citizen Father and an Indian National Citizen Mother AT THE TIME OF BIRTH, regardless of where she was born, DISQUALIFIES Kamala Harris as both Vice President and as potential President of the United States.
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
The US Congress specified in its use of Plenary Powers who they meant to call a "natural born citizen". In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103), they specified the age of twenty one years", and specified that it was the father that passed the ability to be called a natural born citizen onto the child by jus sanguinis (by blood) rather than the simplistic jus soli (by the soil) only requirement found in English Common Law. But still adapting some of the English Legal ruling of Lord Coke in 1609, the United States adopted the concept of
"Nemo potest exuere Patriam" :
"No one has the power / ability / authority
to leave / reject / disown himself from the Father's Land."
[Expanded and reiterated translation, mine.]
From those times until the 26th Amendment, effective June 30, 1971, Constitutionally speaking on the academic plane, for a citizen of the United States able to pass on a natural born citizenship status, he had to be 21 years old. If he was not at least 21, technically (under constitutionally set parameters) his child was to be disqualified from being able to run for President or be Vice-President.
As of June 30, 1971, the age of 18 became the Constitutional age when 18 year old acquired the right to vote. The amendment process is not retroactive, so that someone born on June 29, 1971, needed a 21 year old parent...that is, if we follow strict Constitutionalism. For exceptions to this, we have to look to codified laws in the US Code to say differently, and any codification not measuring up to the Constitution is subject to a legal challenge in the US Supreme Court by any party having legal standing to sue.
To this day, the majority of the nations of the world recognize their own "natural born citizens" as those who are descended directly from their own national citizen fathers, regardless where in the world the child is born. This legal concept goes back many centuries, and pre-dates not only 1609 and the founding of America in 1620, but even pre-dates even the official discovery of America in 1492 under the leadership of Christopher Columbus.
Five years after the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress repealed the ACT of 1790, because it failed to specify its intent clear enough.
The Act of January 29, 1795 sought to "complete" the intent of what lay in the term "natural born citizen" as it was used in what we now call the US Constitution's Article 2.1.5 clause.
That "natural born citizens of the United States" were:
1) Only born to a US Citizen Father at the time of their birth that had only one nationality and allegiance at the time of the child's birth;
2) that the clear and obvious intent of the language of the statute was that the child also never have a dual nationality or any other allegiance than that of the United States for their entire existence from birth to the grave.
But is that really just a presumption regarding the intent of defining natural born citizen in the Act of January 29, 1795? My answer is: No. Let's review why.
In Section 1, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "forever [be free of] all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever."
This was so important it was repeated that he be someone who "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever". He was also to be "a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."
In Section 2, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever".
The Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat.155) stated that:
"children of persons who now are, or have been, citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof . . . ."
From 1802 to 1855, through certain vagaries in the Law, there were those who wondered what the definitive law of Natural Born Citizenship in this time period was. But while we may debate the issue, sole allegiance and sole citizenship to the United States was a definite requirement in order to be a Natural Born Citizen.
"...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
From those times until the 26th Amendment, effective June 30, 1971, Constitutionally speaking on the academic plane, for a citizen of the United States able to pass on a natural born citizenship status, he had to be 21 years old. If he was not at least 21, technically (under constitutionally set parameters) his child was to be disqualified from being able to run for President or be Vice-President.
As of June 30, 1971, the age of 18 became the Constitutional age when 18 year old acquired the right to vote. The amendment process is not retroactive, so that someone born on June 29, 1971, needed a 21 year old parent...that is, if we follow strict Constitutionalism. For exceptions to this, we have to look to codified laws in the US Code to say differently, and any codification not measuring up to the Constitution is subject to a legal challenge in the US Supreme Court by any party having legal standing to sue.
To this day, the majority of the nations of the world recognize their own "natural born citizens" as those who are descended directly from their own national citizen fathers, regardless where in the world the child is born. This legal concept goes back many centuries, and pre-dates not only 1609 and the founding of America in 1620, but even pre-dates even the official discovery of America in 1492 under the leadership of Christopher Columbus.
Five years after the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress repealed the ACT of 1790, because it failed to specify its intent clear enough.
The Act of January 29, 1795 sought to "complete" the intent of what lay in the term "natural born citizen" as it was used in what we now call the US Constitution's Article 2.1.5 clause.
That "natural born citizens of the United States" were:
1) Only born to a US Citizen Father at the time of their birth that had only one nationality and allegiance at the time of the child's birth;
2) that the clear and obvious intent of the language of the statute was that the child also never have a dual nationality or any other allegiance than that of the United States for their entire existence from birth to the grave.
But is that really just a presumption regarding the intent of defining natural born citizen in the Act of January 29, 1795? My answer is: No. Let's review why.
In Section 1, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "forever [be free of] all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever."
This was so important it was repeated that he be someone who "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever". He was also to be "a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."
In Section 2, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever".
The Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat.155) stated that:
"children of persons who now are, or have been, citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof . . . ."
From 1802 to 1855, through certain vagaries in the Law, there were those who wondered what the definitive law of Natural Born Citizenship in this time period was. But while we may debate the issue, sole allegiance and sole citizenship to the United States was a definite requirement in order to be a Natural Born Citizen.
"...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
Further, that the Father be a United States Citizen at the time of the child's birth was viewed then by the Court to be an absolute in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814) @ 289-290
- Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
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."
On July 28, 1868, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the natural born citizen requirement of a US Citizen became clarified and founded upon the inclusion of that birth which was in a State of the United States, and that the 14th Amendment minimum was that the person also be a citizen in the State where they reside, and be subject to the laws of both the national jurisdiction of the United States and that of the local State wherein they reside. The action implies a continuous present tense formulation in its legal phrase: a lifetime US residency and citizenship, not subject to withdrawal by the participant citizen without risk to a withdrawal of 14th Amendment Citizen standing.
In other words, in the strict literal sense, the 14th Amendment disowns those who cease to be citizens of any jurisdiction of the United States. The dis-ownership of the United States by its former citizens who choose to go overseas and not maintain a home state address and State Citizenship, but do not swear allegiance to another, thereby rendering them Stateless, is prevented in language elsewhere and outside the US Constitution in the codifications of the US Code.
But as it regards Natural Born Citizenship, and the requirements of that Status in order to legally and Constitutionally be a President or Vice-President of the United States, the academic argument over the intent of the 14th Amendment and the ability to rescind a citizenship of a non-resident citizen who chooses to neither live in the United States nor be subject to its laws, is a discussion for another day.
Prior to the 14th Amendment we know that "Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law…” stated United States v. Rhodes (1866).
And even after the 14th Amendment, we read in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102
where the Court said,
"The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was...to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside."
With the 14th Amendment, in order to be a US Natural Born Citizen:
1) Children must be born to a US Citizen Father
2) Be born in the United States.
3) Reside perpetually in the United States to age 21.
4) Never at any time owe any allegiance to any alien power.
If one aspired to be President at age 35, the perpetual residency requirement is to age 35. If they aspire to be President of the United States at age 45, they need a perpetual residency to age 21, a combined de facto and de jure dwelling within the United States for at least 14 years since the age of 21. In effect, those who join the US Military and serve outside the United States under the age of 21 were not perceived in the intent of the 14th Amendment, but with the 1971 26th Amendment, the age requirement reduces to age 18 perpetual residency, and still a formula of perpetual residency to age 35 if they run at age 35, as the intent of the clause was a perpetual residency for 35 years in the United States if one were to run at age 35, even with a drop in the age of when a person becomes a voting citizen is Amended into the US Constitution without redressing Article 2.1.5.
Further, as of June 22, 1874, six years after the 14th Amendment was passed:
"The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be 'true and faithful' alone to our government."
US House of Representatives Report No.784, June 22, 1874
Dual Citizenship at birth denies one the claim of being a 14th Amendment Citizen AND that of being a United States Natural Born Citizen.
Concerning the 14th Amendment by the authority of the author of the first clause insertion of having no allegiance to any foreign power at birth, Rep –Ohio, John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)), states:
“ (I) find no fault with the introductory clause [Bill S-61], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being
born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 84--101 1829 (2d ed.) states:
…Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.
…No one can suppose that the parent intended, that WHILE HE WAS A PERMANENT CITIZEN OF THE STATE, his children should not partake of the same rights, enjoy the same liberty, and be protected by the same government.
But notice that the clause that William Rawles attaches to the creating of Natural Born Citizenship is that the Father be a PERMANENT CITIZEN of the State of the United States in order to pass along Natural Born Citizen status to the child.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167 says:
“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.”
Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:
"When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him."
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 84--101 1829 (2d ed.) states:
…Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.
…No one can suppose that the parent intended, that WHILE HE WAS A PERMANENT CITIZEN OF THE STATE, his children should not partake of the same rights, enjoy the same liberty, and be protected by the same government.
But notice that the clause that William Rawles attaches to the creating of Natural Born Citizenship is that the Father be a PERMANENT CITIZEN of the State of the United States in order to pass along Natural Born Citizen status to the child.
The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758)
Par M. De Vattel
Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212 (1797 ff. English Translation editions)
Le Droit Des Gens. Ou Principes De La Loi Naturelle
states:
"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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
Ex Parte Lockwood 154 U.S. 116 (1894) states:
“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since…”
Par M. De Vattel
Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212 (1797 ff. English Translation editions)
Le Droit Des Gens. Ou Principes De La Loi Naturelle
states:
"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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
Ex Parte Lockwood 154 U.S. 116 (1894) states:
“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since…”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167 says:
“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.”
Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:
"When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him."