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.
iLOL I see you failed to address the information provided and it's legitimacy.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.
Another deflection. Figures.sure. carry on.
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.
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.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]
Birtherism 2.0. It worked so well the last time.
:lamoThree 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.
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.
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.
Wrong.She was born in oakland CA she is fine. it is best to just ignore him.
she was Willie Browns girlfriend! a low life piece of trash! Q 2024
Wrong.
Her place of birth does not make her a natural born citizen. it makes her just a citizen.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?