Who is Kamala Harris and what are her credentials? She comes well suited for this endeavor .....

[Razoo]

Whatever her political vulnerabilities, the aspiring vice president is chiefly characterized by her power. Some old-guard advisers in Biden’s inner circle told him to pick an innocuous running mate, whose selection would not so obviously herald a generational changing of the guard. Biden was right to reject this caution and to commit boldly to the future with Harris, who looms in stature over the feckless yes man who currently holds the office of vice president.

In looking to the future, a wide swath of America will also be eagerly anticipating the vice presidential debate — watching and waiting for that moment when Harris makes Mike Pence cry out for mother.


Kamala Harris, Gen X Vice President - Rolling Stone

As a candidate in the Democratic primaries, Kamala Harris stood astride the fault lines of the Democratic Party. The Californian presented herself as an establishment politician (reaching the Senate after serving as San Francisco’s DA and California’s attorney general) whose platform was responsive to the idealism of the party’s grassroots. Harris backed the Green New Deal, a version of Medicare for All (albeit with some vacillation on the details), and marijuana legalization.

Harris embodied a classic Gen X straddle: She’d navigated a path to power through a system controlled by older, whiter, more-conservative politicians, and then proposed to wield the levers of that power in the service of ideals she shared with the enormous, diverse, and progressive millennial and zoomer generations coming of age behind her.

 

[Razoo]

Who is Kamala Harris?

Joe Biden picked a former presidential campaign rival whose debate performances during the Democratic Party primary hurt his own poll numbers at the time.

But Biden has said that Kamala Harris, a U.S. Senator from California, does not hold grudges and neither does he.

Here is a look at Harris:

A history of firsts

Harris becomes the first Black woman and Indian American to appear on a major party’s presidential ticket.

Firsts are nothing new to her. Harris won a race for California attorney general in 2010. She was the first woman and the first Black person to earn the job.

Before that, she was the first woman elected district attorney for San Francisco.

Personal story

Harris is 55 and was born in California to Donald Harris and Shyamala Gopalan. Her father was a Stanford University economics professor who came from Jamaica, while her mother, the daughter of an Indian diplomat, was a cancer scientist.

Harris has a sister, Maya, who has served as a public policy advocate.

Harris married attorney Doug Emhoff in 2014, and she is stepmother to his two children from a previous marriage.


Harris studied economics and political science and graduated in 1986 from Howard University, a historically Black university.

Her law degree came from the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law.


== Published author

In 2009, she authored “Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer.” The book examines myths in the criminal justice system and solutions to improve approaches to fighting crime.

In 2019, she released a memoir, “The Truths We Hold: An American Journey.”

 

[swing_voter]

Harris began her career in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, before being recruited to the San Francisco District Attorney's Office and later the City Attorney of San Francisco's office. In 2003, she was elected district attorney of San Francisco. She was then elected attorney general of California in 2010 and was re-elected in 2014.

Kamala Harris - Wikipedia


She's been on both sides of the death penalty.

 

[aociswundumho]

 

[Razoo]

As a former prosecutor, Harris developed a reputation for assertive questioning during Congressional hearings. She had a memorable exchange with Attorney General William Barr, pushing him to say if President Trump or others at the White House pressured him to investigate political rivals.

Harris had one of her strongest presidential campaign moments in an attack on Biden. In a debate, Harris said Biden made “very hurtful” comments about his past work with segregationist senators and criticized his opposition to busing during integration in the 1970s.

“There was a little girl in California who was a part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day,” she said. “And that little girl was me.”

Biden said the comments mischaracterized his position and noted that he and Harris had a friendly relationship prior to the debate exchange. He has noted how close Harris was with Biden’s late son, Beau, who was the attorney general in Delaware when Harris had the same job in California.

Harris has brutally attacked Trump, labeling him a “drug pusher” for his promotion of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the coronavirus, which has not been proved to be an effective treatment and may even be more harmful.

After Trump tweeted “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” in response to protests about the death of George Floyd, a Black man, in police custody, Harris said his remarks “yet again show what racism looks like.”

 

[Razoo]

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden announced on Tuesday that Sen. Kamala Harris would be his vice-presidential running mate.

The 55-year-old former California attorney general will be the first Black woman to be nominated by either major party for vice president.

Harris ran for president in 2020 on a policy platform that included a public option for healthcare, universal paid leave, and salary increases for teachers.

During the primary, Insider polling found that voters viewed Harris as among the most progressive candidates in the field and among the most prepared for the presidency.


Who is Kamala Harris? Bio, age, family, and key positions - Business Insider

 

[jnug]

That was an impressive performance by both Biden and Harris today. Giggly Kamila was nowhere to be found. Clearly, the staff Biden put around her immediately sat her down and gave her some fundamental tools that she just plain lacked if not read her the riot act. Clearly the staff she has around her now is better than the staff she had during her run for the nomination as they immediately brought some of her campaigning issues to heel and sent her out there with more campaign polish under a National spotlight than she has shown before.

If she does not take the bait Trump will toss at her feet regularely she is going to have a field day in this campaign.

 

[Excon]

The Constitution requires for the higher office of the President that the person be a "natural born Citizen".
The Constitution requires for the lower federal offices that the person be a Citizen.


Those two conditions are distinctly different and can not mean the same.

As the Supreme Court found in Marbury v. Madison.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. [p175]

Marbury v. Madison | 5 U.S. 137​

As the 14th Amendment already establishes who is a citizen for Constitutional purposes, a "natural born Citizen" must mean something different.


Being born in this country only makes Harris a citizen under the current 14th Amendment interpretation, not a Natural born citizen as required to hold the position.

 

[reflechissez]

The Constitution requires for the higher office of the President that the person be a "natural born Citizen".
The Constitution requires for the lower federal offices that the person be a Citizen.


Those two conditions are distinctly different and can not mean the same.

As the Supreme Court found in Marbury v. Madison.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. [p175]

Marbury v. Madison | 5 U.S. 137​

As the 14th Amendment already establishes who is a citizen for Constitutional purposes, a "natural born Citizen" must mean something different.


Being born in this country only makes Harris a citizen under the current 14th Amendment interpretation, not a Natural born citizen as required to hold the position.

Birtherism 2.0. It worked so well the last time.

 

[Excon]

Birtherism 2.0. It worked so well the last time.

iLOL I see you failed to address the information provided and it's legitimacy.

Typical of a liberal.

 

[reflechissez]

iLOL I see you failed to address the information provided and it's legitimacy.

Typical of a liberal.

sure. carry on.

 

[Excon]

sure. carry on.

Another deflection. Figures.

 

[Aristaeus]

The Constitution requires for the higher office of the President that the person be a "natural born Citizen".
The Constitution requires for the lower federal offices that the person be a Citizen.


Those two conditions are distinctly different and can not mean the same.

As the Supreme Court found in Marbury v. Madison.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. [p175]

Marbury v. Madison | 5 U.S. 137​

As the 14th Amendment already establishes who is a citizen for Constitutional purposes, a "natural born Citizen" must mean something different.


Being born in this country only makes Harris a citizen under the current 14th Amendment interpretation, not a Natural born citizen as required to hold the position.

The leading case, Lynch v. Clarke of 1844, indicated that citizens born "within the dominions and allegiance of the United States" are citizens regardless of parental citizenship. This case dealt with a New York law (similar to laws of other states at that time) that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate. The plaintiff, Julia Lynch, had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the U.S., and shortly thereafter all three left for Britain and never returned to the U.S. The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a U.S. citizen by birth and nothing had deprived her of that citizenship, notwithstanding that both her parents were not U.S. citizens or that British law might also claim her through her parents' nationality. In the course of the decision, the court cited the Constitutional provision and said:

Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

And further:

Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.

The decision in Lynch was cited as persuasive or authoritative precedent in numerous subsequent cases, and reinforced the interpretation that "natural born citizen" meant born "within the dominions and allegiance of the United States" regardless of parental citizenship. For example, in an 1884 case, In re Look Tin Singg, the federal court held, that despite laws preventing naturalization of Chinese visitors, Chinese persons born in the United States were citizens by birth, and remained such despite any long stay in China. Citing Lynch, Justice Stephen J. Field wrote:

After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.

 

[Excon]

The leading case, Lynch v. Clarke of 1844, indicated that citizens born "within the dominions and allegiance of the United States" are citizens regardless of parental citizenship. This case dealt with a New York law (similar to laws of other states at that time) that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate. The plaintiff, Julia Lynch, had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the U.S., and shortly thereafter all three left for Britain and never returned to the U.S. The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a U.S. citizen by birth and nothing had deprived her of that citizenship, notwithstanding that both her parents were not U.S. citizens or that British law might also claim her through her parents' nationality. In the course of the decision, the court cited the Constitutional provision and said:

Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

And further:

[...][/B]

Note: If you are seriously interested in discussing this issue that is great, if not ,don't waste our time with bs like you provided above. Also, I clipped your reply due to forum imposed character limits.


1. What you provided in no way refutes the information I provided. Nor could it.

2. The information you obtained (and failed to link) through wiki, is based on a lot of dicta. There is significant difference between a holding and dicta.

3. The Court of Chancery of the State of New-York (Lynch v. Clarke of 1844) has no standing or relevance to what I presented. It holds no federal precedence, and can not supersede the information I provided.

The only relevant information the Wiki entry has in regards to the issue was the courts dicta in Minor v. Happersett. Where it was acknowledged that they were not there to answer the doubts as to whether or not those simply born on US soil were NBC and only decided a citizenship issue (which as previously shown is different from natural born citizenship).

[...]
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
[...]
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) | Justia​

The reality here is that the SCt has never decided the issue. And yes, the Court could decided differently if the issue ever came before them, but they would have to engage in some mental gymnastics to avoid their own precedence and that which Framers were familiar with. And it is not like the SCt hasn't done that before, it just makes them wrong in principle.

But the reality here is that citizenship and natural born citizenship mean two different things.
And with the 14th Amendment establishing what a Citizen is, being born on soil, it only leaves what the Court acknowledged in Minor v. Happersett of those they had no doubt were natural born citizens. Those born on soil to citizen parents.

 

[jnug]

Birtherism 2.0. It worked so well the last time.

Three is nothing for him to address. Gibberish requires no response. He can't help it if you want to pull some absurd take out of the text in your quote box.

 

[Excon]

Three is nothing for him to address. Gibberish requires no response. He can't help it if you want to pull some absurd take out of the text in your quote box.

:lamo

Here it is again. You haven't refuted it, nor could you.

The Constitution requires for the higher office of the President that the person be a "natural born Citizen".
The Constitution requires for the lower federal offices that the person be a Citizen.


Those two conditions are distinctly different and can not mean the same.

As the Supreme Court found in Marbury v. Madison.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. [p175]

Marbury v. Madison | 5 U.S. 137​

As the 14th Amendment already establishes who is a citizen for Constitutional purposes, a "natural born Citizen" must mean something different.


Being born in this country only makes Harris a citizen under the current 14th Amendment interpretation, not a Natural born citizen as required to hold the position.

 

[ludin]

Birtherism 2.0. It worked so well the last time.

She was born in oakland CA she is fine. it is best to just ignore him.

 

[ludin]

Whatever her political vulnerabilities, the aspiring vice president is chiefly characterized by her power. Some old-guard advisers in Biden’s inner circle told him to pick an innocuous running mate, whose selection would not so obviously herald a generational changing of the guard. Biden was right to reject this caution and to commit boldly to the future with Harris, who looms in stature over the feckless yes man who currently holds the office of vice president.

In looking to the future, a wide swath of America will also be eagerly anticipating the vice presidential debate — watching and waiting for that moment when Harris makes Mike Pence cry out for mother.


Kamala Harris, Gen X Vice President - Rolling Stone

As a candidate in the Democratic primaries, Kamala Harris stood astride the fault lines of the Democratic Party. The Californian presented herself as an establishment politician (reaching the Senate after serving as San Francisco’s DA and California’s attorney general) whose platform was responsive to the idealism of the party’s grassroots. Harris backed the Green New Deal, a version of Medicare for All (albeit with some vacillation on the details), and marijuana legalization.

Harris embodied a classic Gen X straddle: She’d navigated a path to power through a system controlled by older, whiter, more-conservative politicians, and then proposed to wield the levers of that power in the service of ideals she shared with the enormous, diverse, and progressive millennial and zoomer generations coming of age behind her.

yet she is responsible for locking up a ton of black males in prison more than white males.
doesn't that make her a racist?

 

[KLATTU]

She knows how to recite all the lw talking points, she's young and she checks diversity boxes.
This pick was a no brainer.
The only downside was that she outshines the # 1 guy, but who wouldn't?

 

[vegas giants]

View attachment 67291269

Party of the rich elite nominates a billionaire

 

[Excon]

She was born in oakland CA she is fine. it is best to just ignore him.

Wrong.
Her place of birth does not make her a natural born citizen. it makes her just a citizen.

 

[john patriot]

she was Willie Browns girlfriend! a low life piece of trash! Q 2024

 

[vegas giants]

she was Willie Browns girlfriend! a low life piece of trash! Q 2024

How dare someone date!!!!!!

 

[Cardinal]

Wrong.
Her place of birth does not make her a natural born citizen. it makes her just a citizen.

This is what racism sounds like.

 

[ultmd]

The Constitution requires for the higher office of the President that the person be a "natural born Citizen".
The Constitution requires for the lower federal offices that the person be a Citizen.


Those two conditions are distinctly different and can not mean the same.

As the Supreme Court found in Marbury v. Madison.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. [p175]

Marbury v. Madison | 5 U.S. 137​

As the 14th Amendment already establishes who is a citizen for Constitutional purposes, a "natural born Citizen" must mean something different.


Being born in this country only makes Harris a citizen under the current 14th Amendment interpretation, not a Natural born citizen as required to hold the position.

Geez....what's next from you....a Qanon thread?

Instead of getting your Constitutional interpretations from alt-right/white nationalist blogs, you might want to try actually READING the damn Constitution for yourself, Excon.

Harris is on the ballot for VPOTUS, not POTUS. But, that said, by ANY standard, she meet any/ever Constitutional requirement to be a future POTUS.

You white nationalist types are so transparent...and so predictable.