Kamala Harris Not Eligible to be Pres under US LAW
Kamala Harris Not Eligible to be Pres under US LAW
Parents must be US Citizens
Kamala doesn't meet the definition of "natural born citizen", therefore, according to the law, is not eligible to run as Pres.:
Neither of Kamala Harris' parents were American citizens when she was born. Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California, on October 20, 1964. Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, is Indian, and still not a US Citizen today, and her father, Donald Harris is Jamaican, and only in 2015 opted to become a dual citizen of the US by Naturalization. A VERY FAR CRY FROM THE FRAMER'S EXPLICIT DEFINITIONS CITED HEREIN. (Actual law books screenshots below.)
Definition of "natural born" citizen, as per law dictionaries (affirmed by the Supreme Court). Vattel’s “Law of Nations” contains the purest form of the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” defined in English, as written in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.
Sandford, quoted an English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise The Law of Nations (Le Droit des gens) for a definition of natural-born citizen: "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens".
It can only be interpreted as being not only born in the country, but born of two parents who were citizens themselves.
It was a law dictionary widely used in court cases in America before the Constitution was written. The English version of Vattel’s “Law of Nations” most show at least 11 years BEFORE the “Declaration of Independence” was penned, and at least 22 years before the “US Constitution” was written. In the 1760's it was cited by the framers in court cases. Benjamin Franklin included an official letter to ensure the framers had it. The definition of "natural born citizen" being right at the center of importance for the "President", as written in the Constitution.
You may wish to study at Priory of Salem, Institute of Peace Studies. Here’s a sample study on the “American National Tree of Liberty” https://watchman.news/2022/07/american-national-tree-of-liberty-analysis-a-must-see-info-graphic/
Did the definition change over time?
Laws are the ultimate guide. Even just naturalization (not talking about "Natural Born Citizen", which is a specific legal phrase not addressed in any recent laws) tells a lot. There are other good points. Such as the law of the land (multiple times affirmed by the Supreme Court) which remained the law from 1790 till 1952, which would have unequivocally banned Kamala from ever being a US Citizen. Only the 1952 Naturalization Act changed it in any way. If you remember Obama's attorneys kept using these arguments mainly to say America is systemically racist, to distract from his own case. Obama's attorneys even cited cases in the 1990s where Hawaiians were stripped of US Citizenship on this basis of ineligibility and the time Hawaii became a state etc. It was a coup.
This one will get revisited one day by the Supreme Court. They used legal definitions from the 1600s to overturn a lot in just the last couple of years. It may work it's way through. Basic definitions are the fabric of true law. Unconstitutional laws are voided on their face, and are easily overturned later on. Only from the basis of true lawful definitions, can true peace, respect and integrity be realized. True organic politics are made from this balance towards the nation in which it relates.
If all laws would be audited based on Glucksberg Test, (per the Supreme Court’s validation as correct), then this travesty would be undone.
Bill of Rights for the 1600s overturned Illinois law:
The “Glucksberg test” has been used as the deciding factor on whether a State law could be overridden based on a Federal mandate. This has often taken 50 years to finally get its day in court.
In the USSC McDonald v Chicago 2nd Amendment Case, it was confirmed that even for the US Bill of Rights, these could not be forced upon the states via the 14th Amendment.
It was concluded that the only reason the 2nd Amendment could be forced onto States was via the Glucksberg test, as having proven to be “deeply rooted in the history and traditions of the people”. In this case, it only applied to states because the wording “keep and bear arms” was part of the preceding English Bill of Rights of 1689.
The Glucksberg rule also exempted states from having to violate state laws that had previously banned abortion, same sex marriage, interracial marriage, and other previously known laws.
Should the State wait for Glucksberg Tests to reach the Supreme Court, or move for secession?
We’re wrongfully told that state-sponsored sanctions that limit Christian speech disproportionately is legal. That is although such practices are “not deeply rooted in the history and traditions”.
Although other false religions are not “deeply rooted” in the traditions of the people, presently, the federal mis-use of the 1st Amendment is used to elevate false religions. These even use the “attack on Christianity” as the basis for forcing our children to watch sadistic pornography in schools. The Mayflower Compact demonstrates a set of Christian beliefs “deeply rooted in the history and traditions” as a group trying to escape secular humanistic encroachments on the Christian religion itself.
America’s First Constitution of 1637 clearly stated the settlers had “one aim: the advancement of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, and maintaining the purity of the Gospel”, this was later ratified in all New England colony states and continued, at least in today’s constitution as the basis of the union that was still being perfected.
Art. 1, s. 1 of the US Constitution lays this down most plainly: “the power is in the People who are represented by the independent States”
Art. 6, s. 1 of the US Constitution binds the definition of the People and their common law duties as:“…engagements entered into before the adoption of the Constitution, shall be valid..”.
Part of this body of the common law “engagements entered into” would be Federalist Papers #78,“the power of the People is above both (the legislative and judicial branches)”. This is echoed throughout all the Courts of the USA as the most foundational definition of the American “rule of law”.
(Sources: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-41-50 or USCOURTS.GOV (screenshot below, as of 3/6/2023): The most simplistic, precise and conclusive text on “The Rule of Law at USCOURTS.GOV“.
Although the constitution says at a Federal level they wouldn’t be required to have a religious test, many states continued to use such tests for office. Also till the 1950s the law for Naturalization explicitly said you must be Christian to be Naturalized as a Citizen of any state in the union.
Should we wait 50 years for it to get fixed like in Roe v Wade? Some say only secession is the solution. Or is this the way forward, promoting a full audit on basis of the Glucksberg Test?