Yes, Kamala Harris Is Eligible For Vice President

440px-Senator_Harris_official_senate_portraitThe media is alight today after the publication of a piece in Newsweek by Chapman University Professor John C. Eastman that raised the question of whether Sen. Kamala Harris is a citizen and eligible to be Vice President.  She is.  The courts have long recognized that individuals born in the United States are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. In fairness to Professor Eastman and Newsweek, this has been a debate that has been raised during prior elections over candidates ranging from Chester Arthur to Barack Obama to John McCain.

Birthright citizenship has been a subject of debate from the time that the 14th Amendment was adopted.  There are arguments on both sides of the currently accepted broad interpretation of the language.  Many of our closest allies reject the concept of birthright citizenship.

However, the case law is strongly supports Harris.  In 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court found that the child of Chinese immigrants was still a citizen under the 14th Amendment because he was born on U.S. territory. His parents were here legally as permanent residents.  Moreover, the language of the 14th Amendment does not clearly support the exclusions raised by Eastman.  It states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Most reading that language have concluded that it allows for birthright citizenship for anyone “born … in the United States.”  The 14th Amendment starts and ends as a model of clarity, stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are “citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” But between those two phrases, Congress inserted the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Those six words have perplexed scholars for 150 years. The dominant view of law professors is the line as a whole guarantees that anyone born within the United States becomes an American citizen. But some believe that the caveat means you must be here in a legal status, that if you are not a American citizen, then you are a legal resident.

I do not believe that there is a credible question of Harris’ eligibility. However, I am concerned with the attacks on Newsweek and the author from a free speech standpoint. This issue has been raised for decades and the Supreme Court cases are few and are not dispositive on all aspects of the question.

In prior coverage of candidates like McCain, there was not a demand for newspapers to denounce their own publications. Eastman is a professor who raised a commonly discussed constitutional and political issue. There is no reason to denounce him as a racist or Newsweek as an enabler of racism. Media often publish controversial theories. There were not demands for retractions when a Harvard professor said Trump was not actually impeached when he was impeached, a North Carolina professor saying the entire Trump defense team would face bar charges, or any number of the controversial theories of criminality against Trump.  Instead we simply debated the issues, which actually raised interesting historical or ethical questions.

LA Times’ Michael McGough called Newsweek’s explanation “feeble” when it insisted that it was merely sharing a constitutional viewpoint and not attempting  “to ignite a racist conspiracy theory around Kamala Harris’ candidacy.” Yet, this “feeble” reason has been the basis for past articles on the debate over the 14th Amendment in major publications for decades.

Rather than contest the analysis of Professor Eastman, people are attacking Newsweek for allowing his views to be heard. It is an effort to force a cringing apology like the ones following the publication of the column by Sen. Tom Cotton in the New York Times.  Eastman indicated that his theory would not likely be accepted. Yet, he put forward the case for a narrow interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Even a Congressional Research Service report from 2011 acknowledged such countervailing theories before concluding,, correctly, that

“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’”

 

175 thoughts on “Yes, Kamala Harris Is Eligible For Vice President”

  1. So, Newsweek and John Eastman have a right to free speech, but those thinking he’s a jerk don’t? Is that right?

    Because I think this is a very dangerous precedent you want to set here.

    1. She is not eligible. Library of Congress, 1st Congress, 1st Session. Explains what they meant at the time of writing. There is a difference in citizen and Natural Born Citizen. It’s about the parents and the 14th amendment is about citizenship not NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. LOOK IT UP AND READ FOR YOURSELF.

      1. Kamala Harris isn’t “fit” to lead the country, let alone the world. She was losing the Democratic primary in her own state b/c she’s so unlikable and unpopular. The more scrutiny she gets, the more her true colors will be seen and exposed. “Heels up! Lock ’em up Harris” is not going to fly with the American people.

        Guess you didn’t hear NYT columnist Thomas Friedman, no fan of Trump, call what Trump just achieved “a Geopolitical earthquake in the Middle East”?

        Friedman said, ““The U.A.E. and Israel and the U.S…showed—at least for one brief shining moment—that the past does not always have to bury the future….the haters and dividers don’t always have to win.”

        Reminder — it was the Obama foreign policy team that orchestrated sending a billion dollars, in cash, to the homophobic Iranian terrorist regime. The Iran nuclear deal? What a crock.

        Thank God for Donald Trump. Without question.

        1. Anonymous, you fail to mention that Freidman’s columns credited the explosion in Beirut as a major catalyst in this development.

          1. I forgot to mention that Friedman called it “a HUGE achievement.” Ushering in a “new era” of peace and stability.

            Contrast this with Obama sending Iran a billion dollars in pallets of cash, in the dark of night, on unmarked planes, without approval from Congress, to bankroll Iran’s terrorist regime. Iran used the cash infusion to fund its terror wars further destabilizing the region. Unbelievable.

              1. President Trump should receive a Nobel Peace Prize for his deal with Israel and the UAE.

                Absolutely historic.

          2. I accept it had a role, seth, but, chance favors the prepared mind, as pasteur said
            the ground for the historic treaty was laid in advance

            finally, a small win for kushner, pencil necked geek, and a big one for Trump, the GREAT LEADER

        2. “God” and “Donald Trump” do not belong in the same sentence. First of all, Thursday’s pathetic Trump Show at our White House (where fatso doesn’t belong)was cringe worthy: a round of white men praising the “leadership” of the fat election cheater for something he had nothing to do with, but which he could take credit for because he’s behind in the polls and is probably paying someone off to get the camera time. UAE and Israel had been in discussions for years about normalizing trade and what happened Thursday only made public their agreement about trade which they arrived at without fat boy’s help. But…the fat election cheater left out the fact that Israel had to give up further attempts to occupy the West Bank. At the end of the day, how does this affect the average American? It doesn’t, but it might get wealthy Jews to send chubby some money. Anything to get in front of those cameras and appear successful on yet another day when record numbers of Americans are dying and getting sick, and schools and businesses are re-closing after opening briefly.

          All of which is a distraction against what DOES affect the average American: The raging pandemic, and Trump’s attempts to disable the US Postal Service for the reason that more Americans might want to vote by mail due to his incompetence in handling the pandemic. Trump admitted he would veto legislation for funding for the Post Office and that the reason was to kneecap voting by mail (even though he and Mikey Pence both vote by mail). Trump’s stooge, DeJoy, has ordered: 1. no more overtime, even though there has been a hiring freeze for years and overtime and temporary help are needed to get the job done; 2. removal of large-scale mail sorting equipment that can handle 35,000 pieces of mail per hour; 3. removal of collection boxes (the one outside my local post office is now gone). Republicans say nothing, except to complain about the USPS not making a profit. The USPS was established by the Constitution. It is a GOVERNMENT SERVICE, so where is there any requirement for it to make a profit or even cover its operating costs via postage? The USPS gives veterans preference in hiring–there are thousands of them working for the USPS. The USPS delivers millions of prescription medications, especially in rural areas. No one questions whether other government services should create profit, such as the military, education, or police and fire protection. One area where profit should not exist, but which Republicans support: healthcare. Republicans actually passed a bill forbidding Medicare and Medicaid from negotiating prescription drug prices. How is this good for the American people?

          But, hey, now Israeli’s can purchase goods from UAE and vice-versa. That’s supposed to excite me in view of the daily lying done by Trump, pushing to re-open schools when the pandemic is still raging, trying to kneecap voting by mail and refusing to do anything about Russia’s ongoing efforts to help him cheat again, plus the fact the he refuses to do anything about Russia paying a bounty to kill Americans?

          1. Natacha – for shits and giggles, would you share with us what excites you about Joe Biden becoming president?

            1. Hey, I’ll go!

              Getting a competent and knowledgeable person back in office who is not constantly lying, bragging, bullying, and disgracing the office like Trump, who is a low life of the 1st order and has no loyalty to anyone but himself, and that includes America. Beyond personal qualities, I look forward to an administration eager for the future and facing it. That includes resuming our cooperation and leadership in world affairs and addressing domestic problems which have been ignored, abandoned, or poorly addressed. Those include most importantly organizing the nation around sound and safe procedures for dealing with the virus, health care for the uninsured, reducing medical costs, taking leadership in developing new technologies, protecting the environment, addressing problems caused by aging and failing industries, addressing immigration problems comprehensively as was done with 2013 bill, raising the federal minimum wage. and raising taxes on the top percentiles and corporations and following “pay-go” guidelines to corral the exploding deficits of the last 4 years.

              1. He asked you what you liked about Biden? You didn’t answer. Maybe you did and the answer was nothing because that’s what you posted, absolutely nothing. Get woke.

                1. Gee Richard, I don;t have to “like” the president, I just have to think he’ll do the job I want him to and not be a complete a.shole like the one we have.

                  I like Biden because I think he’ll work to those goals and is a basically decent guy.

                    1. How nice to want a ‘decent guy’ in the White House. Yet even Barack Obama didn’t endorse his own VP back in 2016. Why not? Now in 2020 it is clear that Joe Biden is not mentally sharp enough to hold a press conference and take questions from reporters — even after 50 years in politics he can’t think on his feet and handle the press? Clearly the answer is no. He is hiding out and avoiding press scrutiny. This is his plan to get to election day with as little exposure as he can get away with. And for good reason. The more we see and hear Joe Biden, the more obvious it becomes that he is not capable of doing the job. His corruption will be exposed as well.

                    2. “even Barack Obama didn’t endorse his own VP back in 2016. Why not?”

                      Because Biden didn’t run in 2016! His son had just died.

                      “He is hiding out and avoiding press scrutiny”

                      That’s false.

                      As for Biden’s mental competence, it’s better than Trump’s and I look forward to the contrast at the debates. The Harris – Pence debate should be good too.

                      “he can’t think on his feet”

                      That would be Trump. He rambles in all of his speeches. He can barely get a literate sentence out of his mouth. He garbles words. …

                    3. Gray Anonymous continues believing that Trump is somehow immune to questions of mental state. Which shows how rightwing media dumbs-people-down. Gray Anonymous has no idea that half of America considers Trump unhinged.

                      Gray Anonymous is like one of those beer guzzling pigs who disses marijuana. We all know the type. They see themselves as more responsible than pot smokers when they’re really bloated sacks of sh_it.

              2. “Getting a competent and knowledgeable person back in office”

                I would agree that at one time Biden was a competent and knowledgeable national leader.

                Now he is in the twilight of his years and mental decline has made him unfit.
                I am not going to pile on Joe, as Dems go, he was not as bad as many, and better than some
                But his day is done. KAMALA is being advanced as his likely 25th amendment replacement and we all know so.

                so lets hear from book on KAMALA

                1. I would agree that at one time Biden was a competent and knowledgeable national leader.

                  He spent four years as an associate in a suburban practice. Students of Biden have maintained he missed his calling as a real estate agent. (He comes from a line of salesmen). Again, he has no history in any executive position and no history in the business world. His son has an abnormal talent for leveraging connections. Most amazing, really, given that he’s a drug-addled buffoon with a bad case of satyriasis.

                2. Kurtz, Biden has always been a gaffe machine – I’m sure if you think about it, you’ll remember this well known fact – and his history of stuttering as a kid is considered by experts in the field as partly responsible as a coping mechanism. His supposed dementia is a meme sold by enemies and bought by the same who ignore Trump’s gaffes, and worse, sentences dissolving into unintelligible gobbledygook. We have had almost 4 years of an incompetent and unfit president who is also malignantly interested in only his own ego gratification. If that was limited only to his incessant and ridiculous bragging – how do you deal with that and still admire him? – it would be not OK, but manageable. It’s not and even if Biden is as incompetent as Trump – and he’s not – he’s not malignant, but a serious man who actually cares about principles and other people. If he were, I’m sure staff can do the details and we can trust Biden on the direction.

                  1. We admire what he gets done and exposes. Your OK with all this intelligence agencies crap. This should alarm anyone, period. Those caught so far up their ass in political crap are letting crime take over our country. Bidens are a crooked bunch and the entire clan has gotten rich on the name at the expense of the American people. A man who feels the need to plagiarize, lie and embellish hairy leg, CornPop fantasy stories is in deep trouble.

              3. With the exception of wanting more intrusion by the government including paying much higher taxes, and following a government-mandated mask-wearing policy for the foreseeable futre, plus federal minimum wage raise hike that will almost certainly hurt businesses and jobs market….based on most of the rest of your wish list, and putting your dislike of Trump’s personality aside, you are probably going to want to hold your nose and vote for Trump.

                Sometimes that Red Pill is hard to swallow.

            2. HE’S NOT TRUMP, the most-dangerous, deceitful, narcissistic and incompetent person who ever occupied our White House. That’s enough. I really could go on, but it wouldn’t make any difference to you, except to say that if Trump could cheat his way back into our White House: 1. we’d have U.S. service men and women being killed for bounty; hell, who’s to say that the Russians would limit the bounties to those stationed in Afghanistan? 2. Putin will decide where and how many American troops will be stationed overseas; they are being pulled out of Germany because this is what Putin wants, and Trump is beholden to him. Putin has the goods on Trump and if he disclosed what he has, Trump would no doubt land in prison; 3. the pandemic would still be out of control, and maybe beyond being controlled, so millions more will get sick, and many will die. No one knows what the long-term effect of coronavirus is, other than there are residual symptoms; 4. millions of people would lose health care coverage, so this would cause bankruptcies and foreclosures; 5. the U.S. would be in a full-blown depression; cutting payroll taxes means cutting funding for Medicare and Medicaid. There is a limit to how much borrowing the U.S. can do. This is just for starters. Trump sucks the life out of the soul of America.

            1. Natacha, all you have to say is, I really don’t like Donald Trump. Now, wasn’t that easy, and your blood pressure didn’t have to go up.

          2. Natacha….Mail in votes, No ID’s, early and late voting. Can the Democrats win anything on ideas? Can they just show up at the polls? Ballot harvesting….really?

  2. If we had sensible policies on this matter, she might be eligible to run for public office at this point, but she would not have been granted citizenship at birth.

    Sensible policy would classify persons in the United States and its abiding dependencies as citizens, denizens, and aliens and classify aliens as settlers, temporary residents, sojourners, and illegal aliens. Persons abroad would be classified as to their relation to the United States as citizens, denizens, settlers, temporary residents, and generic aliens. Someone born in the US or its abiding dependencies would have a status derived from their mother’s unless they were of legitimate birth and their father had a preferred status, in which case their status would be derived from their father’s. In most cases, they’d simply inherit the parental status, with the qualification that the child of a settler would inherit denizen status and the child of a denizen would inherit citizenship. In re persons born abroad, the child of a citizen would inherit denizen status and the child of a denizen, settler, or temporary resident would inherit the status of claimant. A claimant could acquire temporary resident status (if their parent were such) or settler status (were their parent a settler or denizen) consequent to an administrative hearing on the reasons the child was born abroad.

    Sensible policy would be sparing about naturalization. It would require (with some exceptions) that the subject be at least 25 years of age. It would require he demonstrate that for the majority of his natural life he had been a palpable resident, been resident here according to law, had his domicile in this country and not someplace else; and not been incarcerated, on probation, on parole, carrying penal obligations not discharged, under an civil commitment order, or under a guardianship order. It would require he pass a civics examination in English, written and oral. It would require he swear an oath of allegiance and a sworn statement renouncing his citizenship in each foreign country for which he might have a conceivable claim (with copies to be sent to the nearest consulates).

    As far as I can tell, her parents were on student visas at the time she was born. Had we sensible policy, she would have been classified as a temporary resident at birth. Had her parents acquired settler status, she and her sister might have been classified as settlers as a consequence. Neither could have received citizenship until 1990 / 92, and only upon successful completion of an examination and the administration of oaths. Had we sensible policy, we shouldn’t be all that resistant to a naturalized citizen running for public office, as acquiring citizenship would require you spend most of your life here and explicitly renounce and eschew any other allegiance.

    We could provide an alternative pathway to naturalization for those born abroad of American citizens, providing for them to be granted citizenship consequent to parental petition filed once they’d spent the majority of their natural life in the United States.

  3. People who would claim that those who are born in the US from parents who may not be in the country legally (undocumented, illegal- pick the adjective which works for you), because their parents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States are playing with a double edged razor blade.

    For if you claim that those who do not have legal status as citizens, visitors, or immigrants of some sort “Are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”, then are you not granting them what amounts to something resembling the immunity that diplomats enjoy, because they also are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

    I certainly believe that if birthright citizenship was overturned on that basis, then you would certainly start seeing that obvious corollary argument being made by those arrested & charged, and those who are being held for deportation by our immigration services.

    And if you want to chase the rabbit down all possible rabbit holes because you don’t like “birthright citizenship”, then will you be also arguing that those who are birthed by Caesarean section, or conceived with technical assistance (such as IVF) are not “naturally” born?

    Personally I think that the current and traditional interpretation of the 14th Amendment is the absolutely correct one; the arguments against it reek of desperation, as do most arguments against the plain wording of the Constitution made because someone simply does not like the end results or implications created by our Constitution. The Constitution is what creates & defines the US, is absolutely the highest law in the land. You may not like some aspect of our country, but I think that it was founded by incredible and pretty damn wise people – so if fo you do not like some aspect of the USA for some xenophobic reason, or desire for either a more authoritarian or more socialist/communist form of Government then there is a method to modify it to create a country that is more along the lines of the one you think you want. But I would be very careful about what you ask for lest it come true – the vast majority of citizens throughout (Semi-recent) history who have Democratically voted to grant authoritarian powers to their leaders eventually regret the end results.

    1. Your dead wrong. Natural born means the PARENTS are citizens or one parent is a citizen and the other was at least legally living in the U.S. one year prior to birth. My source, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 1ST CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION. They explain exactly what NATURAL BORN MEANS. LOOK IT UP PEOPLE. STOP BELIEVING AND LEARN FOR YOURSELF.

    2. Here is what you just said, think about it. Putin and his wife could have a child on the steps of the White House, live anywhere in the world, once their child hit 35 yrs of age, they would be natural born citizen and would be eligible for presidency. LUNANCY OF THOUGHT.

  4. You’d be better off sandpapering a lions butt in a pair of pork chop panties than having Biden/Harris leading this nation.

    1. REGARDING ABOVE:

      CuznPookie is yet another puppet created by our resident troll, a creepy, loser nerd.

  5. White Conservative Pundits Question Harris’ ‘Blackness’

    On Fox News, longtime Republican operative Ari Fleischer suggested Black Americans simply wouldn’t embrace Harris.

    “She’s just not that historically exciting to African Americans,” Fleischer said Tuesday night. “She certainly wasn’t during the [Democratic presidential] primary – and that was one of the biggest reasons Biden picked her. He needs that boost in African American turnout in order to win. I just don’t see it.”

    Some Fox journalists sought to temper their colleagues’ assessments that she was a leftist or extremist. Chris Wallace told viewers, “She is not far to the left despite what Republicans are going to try to say.” Anchor Martha McCallum tweeted: “she is accomplished, young and a fighter.” Political anchor Bret Baier said her choice “sent a powerful message” for young Asian or Black girls.

    Yet Fleischer wasn’t the only one who sought to question Harris’ authenticity as an African American. His argument was fleshed out further by Mark Levin – a conservative legal pundit – speaking just hours after the pick was named. “Kamala Harris is not an African American,” he told viewers on his show for the conservative site the Blaze. “She is Indian and Jamaican. Jamaica is in the Caribbean. “India is” – he paused – “out there near China.”

    Even so, Levin who also has a weekly show on Fox News, focused like a laser beam on her heritage in the opening of his program for the Blaze: “Her ancestry does not go back to American slavery. To the best of my knowledge, her ancestry doesn’t go back to slavery at all.”

    Cornell historian Washington, who has spent her decades-long career studying the American South and slavery, tells NPR that Levin appears to be willfully missing the point, in an effort to peel Black voters away from Harris, and ultimately from voting for Biden too.

    “The Americas represent two hemispheres and Jamaica was a slave society. And so why is she any less African-American than I am?” Washington asked. “We are all Americans, and those of us who have African heritage are African-Americans.”

    Some conservatives such as Dinesh D’Souza have revived a piece written by Harris’ father in which he said he was descended from a notorious white Irish slave owner in Jamaica. The link has not been conclusively proven, according to journalistic explorations of the claim by Snopes and others; if so, the mother of the slave owner’s child who was her ancestor has not been identified.

    Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh and far-right online conspiracist Alex Jones claimed this shows she was not descended from slaves.

    Washington says the one possibility hardly rules out the other.

    “Not many black people in the Americas are free of the stigma of white blood. It is the case that slaveholders had sex with their slaves and and had children who were biracial,” Washington says. “It was the case not only in the United States. It was even more so the case in a country like Jamaica. And it was the case in India where her mother was from.”

    All three nations are former British colonies, she argues, “cut from the same cloth.”

    Edited from: “As Harris Launches Candidacy, Conservatives Take Aim At Her Black And Indian Heritage”

    NPR, 8/13/20
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    The same rightwing pundits who hyped the bogus ‘Walkaway’ movement are now telling us that Harris is not ‘Black enough’ to be accepted by African Americans. According to them most Blacks will vote for Trump because ‘Black unemployment was so low’ before Deep State created the pandemic.

    1. I could care less if she was descended from slaves or not.

      The issue waiting in the wings is big money reparations extorted from the United States to bribe the BLM criminals to go home.

      I say: no way. If the US funds “reparations” then they are making blacks the news MASSAS and we the white taxpayers, the new slaves

      at that point, the violent rebellion of the slave named NAT TURNER will become the example for we, white folks, soon to be a minority, to follow

      1. I’m done giving a crud whether anybody was descended for slaves. This extortionist guilt trip won’t work on me.

        Feeble minded guilty white people still cower before this imaginary debt. I say, I refuse to pay your alleged debt, i repudiate it. And you slander me by asking it.

        I’m strong on this, but 7/8 of white people reject reparations. This is a poison for our collective future and we reject it fully., There is no room for negotiation on this.

        Most white folks understand this just fine. But these reparations advocates say 1/8 white people actually “are in favor of some sort of reparation” — perhaps so; and if so then 1/8 white people are feeble minded idiots. There is certainly no such thing as white supremacy, thats for sure!

        But if white people are going survive, they better grow some brains and bllz, too, fast. So get a look at this demand for your enslavement white man:

        https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2019/07/duke-university-professor-william-darity-reparations

        We have to make this personal white people. If anybody in your family or circle of friends wants to talk up or entertain this “reparations” thing you need to correct them immediately. If they fail to rectify their errant opinions, they must be penalized and punished with lawful interpersonal sanctions.

        We are going to have a divorce in the white race. The people my side is gonna divorce, are all the 1/8 mental midgets and weaklings who want to volunteer to be slaves to black agitators like BLM and fetch water for them and their boss Soros and his like.

        When we sort out white people, when we purge these fools and traitors from our midst and rectify the ignorant and re-educate them into proper group solidarity– the rest is gonna work out just fine.

        Cancel culture needs to begin among white people who want our very own kind to survive.

        We must confront BLM sycophants and suckups, we must correct them, and then we must CANCEL them if they fail to recant.

        There is plenty of space for white folks to disagree on politics but really none on this. Because any white skinned cracker among us that wants to sell the other crackers down below them into permanent tax debt slavery to pay for “Reparations” by the trillions, would make US into slaves.

        Such white persons, that 1/8, if they are serious and cant be reformed on this, then they are green-lighted for CANCELLATION

      2. You are aware that St. Ronnie of Reagan gave Japanese Americans reparations. By the way, you just outed yourself with the likes of the “very fine people”.

        1. When Fishwings is finished with 7th grade social studies, he will know that only Congress legislates.

          That aside, the indemnity paid to ethnic Japanese was extended to people who had been incarcerated and lost property during the period running from 1942 to 1945. Some such people are still alive, including the actor George Takei. They didn’t hand over a wad of cash to people six generations removed from that event.

          1. Fish wants to talk about Groups. I’ll talk about Groups.

            Japanese Americans are some of the finest immigrants of our great nation’s history.

            Their law abiding, thrify and industrious culture and disposition, is well known

            Their contributions to STEM are famed. Look at Michio Kaku, a native born American of Japenese ancestry, winner of Nobel Prize in Physics.

            Person for person,. what a blessing

            Now don’t get me started on blacks. Oh wait. Let’s just nibble at the iceberg. 55% of violent crimes committed by a group that’s maybe 18 percent of the population

            We can talk about Japanese ethnics versus blacks all day long Fish, and my points will only come that much clearer

            NOTHING for black reparations. NOT ONE THIN DIME. The gobs of special privileges they get already are too much.

            What BLM needs now are handcuffs to stop them from organizing any more crimes and riots.

            https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-black-lives-matter-looting-reparations-peaceful-protests-dismissed

            article: BLM leader calls Chicago looting “reparations”

            I say time to pay in PLOMBO NO PLATA how about that. run that through your translater Fish

        2. Fish are you white? Just askin. again

          I think so. Maybe you look down and wish you weren’t ? that would be a terrible way to live. I thank my ancestors for giving me life every day!
          You may be able to recover some esteem and join the 7/8 of the white population who don’t want to be tax slaves to blacks for “reparations to be counted in TRILLIONS

          As for Korematsu etc. that is Totally inapplicable. The Japanese internees were still alive in the 80s– the internment was during wwII 42-45. so those reparations were just as paid to the living and within near memory.

          We are not going to agree to making up for alleged harms that were CENTURIES ago. and not the fault of the US as an entity anyhow. no way.

          Maybe I want a reparation because my patrilineal ancestors, lost 3 dead brothers in the Yankee Infantry, and that family were never slaveholders ever. may tax envelope will have a handful of dirt from their graves to give should a bill come due and nothing more. In fact, maybe the blacks owe my family, how about that. and for a lifetime of taxes doled out to a lot of them in the forms of their qualifying shares of 20 some federal welfare and aid type programs that over decades has already paid billions to them for their misfortunes.

          they can let it go, but it will only get worse and nastier if they press the claim. guys like you will have to decide, is your life worth living today, or do you owe a tax debt for those long dead? only a fool hesitates to answer in his own favor.

  6. My family went through the process during the same time period and you are leaving things out. Students – her parents – were part the immigration plan back then. Her parents don’t seem to have the housing or jobs that were required because they were both students. The focus has to be on her parents and not simply on the child. Now I realize things have changed since then but I question why does she just get a pass that all the rest didn’t? Anchor babies didn’t exist back then either.

    So having serious employment and I believe owning housing seem to be missing in this picture.

    1. The status of her parents is irrelevant, as long as they were under the jurisdiction of U.S. law (which they were). She’s a natural born citizen because she was born in the U.S.

  7. Was John F. Kennedy born in Canada? The news had it that his mom went there for an abortion and it failed and she came back with the kid. Was that a “news” story ever?

    1. No, Liberty, that was ‘never’ a news story because it never happened. It’s just ‘you’, a spiteful Trumper, trying to insert a lie on a public forum.

      1. You’re kind of a blockhead Peter. This guy has been posting here for years to amuse himself, at one time under the pseudonym ‘Jack Ruby’. (He’s in no danger of amusing anyone else). He’s never offered anything but parody opinions.

  8. The issue is not some Newsweek article, it is Trump himself bringing up the issue. Remember that Trump spearheaded the “birther” conspiracy that turned out to be completely bogus. Trump did it for racist reasons, and is doing it now for racist reasons.

    1. Remember that Trump spearheaded the “birther” conspiracy that turned out to be completely bogus.

      No, he challenged Obama to release his long form birth certificate. He did this in 2011, several years after Hellary operatives raised the matter sub rosa.

      1. And why would anyone need to see the long form, when Obama’s normal birth certificate had already been released, when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had sworn Obama in (presumably agreeing that Obama was eligible to be sworn in, since otherwise Roberts would not be upholding his own oath), when there was a contemporaneous birth announcement in the newspaper when Obama was born, …

        Trump was a birther conspiracy theorist.

        1. According to some of the arguments for Harris, who cares who she is, or where she came from, or anything else for that matter. She is running as a Democrat against Trump, and that is all that matters.

          Obama was the most secretive candidate about his background ever, and we still don’t know the truth…the name “birther” is just a scam, to frighten people from asking real questions.

          I never heard an outcry of “birther,” when the Democrats claimed that John McCain did not quality for President under even clearer circumstances than we had about Obama, or we now have about Harris.

          I guess it no longer matters to some, who becomes President of the United States…so long as it is not Trump. Sad, but true.

        2. And why would anyone need to see the long form, when Obama’s normal birth certificate had already been released,

          I gather your handlers at Correct-the-Record told you to respond to everything.

          Why not release it? Period long forms were circulating, so the data fields on period long forms were known and known to be banal. It’s a reasonable inference that Obama wouldn’t release it because the controversy diverted attention from the concealment of information he really wanted kept confidential. NB Gov. Abercrombie also urged him to release it.

          It’s amusing how partisan Democrats (who have not an ounce of integrity) insist on seeing Trump’s tax returns in order to use them as fodder for more lawfare games yet are perfectly indifferent to Obama’s concealment of information that Democratic candidates had released for 30 years and which John McCain had also released (e.g. his medical records). Other candidates (John Kerry among them) have declined to release their college transcripts and found that checkbook journalists got them anyway. Obama’s schools were extraordinarily careful with his records, so they remain unknowns. (It’s a reasonable wager that at all three institutions, the dean of students requisitioned microtext and locked them away in a safe in his office).

          It’s a reasonable wager that one or more of the following are to be found on Obama’s school records: large mulligans granted in the admissions process, applications for scholarships available only to international students, applications using the name Soetero, or applications checking some race box other than ‘black’. Close students of Obama’s language have noted in the past that he uses an idiom characteristic of people who’ve been through cognitive therapy programs, so we have an idea of why the medical records have been concealed.

          1. Wow, you’re a worse conspiracy theorist than I’d realized.

            And I wasn’t among those questioning John McCain’s eligibility (though I questioned his wisdom in choosing Palin). If McCain were still alive, I’d choose him in a heartbeat over Trump.

            1. Wow, you’re a worse conspiracy theorist than I’d realized.

              The term ‘conspiracy theory’ does not mean what you fancy it means. I guess at Correct-the-Record orientation you weren’t warned against lame-o attempts at a comeback.

              1. LOL that you continue to fantasize that I’m getting orders or pay from somewhere to post comments here.
                Are YOU getting orders or pay from somewhere, and you’re projecting?
                I don’t assume that.

        3. “Commit” brings up the “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court” John Roberts. Did you know the name “John Roberts” appears on Epstein’s flight logs? Hmmm. Is it CJ John Roberts? Or another John Roberts? Will we ever know? It is a valid question that needs to be answered by John Roberts. And it might even help to explain some of Roberts’ bizarre decisions, beginning with Obamacare.

    2. What’s racist is BLM, anti-white racist, they have been organizing riots for 2 months going on three, and the payoff they want is trillions of dollars in “reparations” and idea that has been a round for decades as a joke but is now taken seriously

      White folks, if you want to fund trillions of dollars in government funds to be handed out to blacks just because they are black, at your taxpayer expense, vote for Biden and Kamala

  9. Mr. Turley your argument makes no sense.  News publications have to decide what is “newsworthy”.  It is one thing for some con law professor nobody has ever heard of to raise this question in private.  A major, well-known national news publication deciding it is “newsworthy” is an entirely different matter.  You yourself are able to acknowledge there that there is not a credible question of Harris’ eligibility.  Well, that is not at all what was implied when Newsweek decided this was “newsworthy”.  And since you, an expert in US Constitutional law are not able to see a credible question, how on earth is the public supposed to see a credible question? And if the public does not see a credible question then of course they are going to see racism.  

    Also – with respect to John McCain argument.. yes, liberals can be racists too, what is your point? When the question was raised with John McCain it was STILL racist. The characterization of racism is based not on the fact that the person raising the argument is being racist toward John McCain, it is based on the fact that in the absence of a credible question, it is fair to presume that the argument relies on appealing to a bias in people relating to foreign “others”/”outsiders” and their inherent inferiority rather than facts and constitutional precedent.  THAT. IS. RACISM. 

    Get with the program, Turley. 

    1. NEWS FLASH FBI LAWYER TO PLEAD GUILTY TO FAKING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CARTER PAGE FISA WARRANT

      DURHAM BRINGS FIRST CHARGES

      more to come….

  10. Birtherism and sudden financial conscience once dems are in office…, a repub trait since the early 2000’s!! Notice the lack of concern in ’16 when Ted Cruz ran for president despite his birthplace in Canada. So let’s add complete hypocrisy to repub traits, shall we?

    Glad we’re spending time talking about this rather than…I don’t know….the president actively and brazenly trying to cripple the post office so he can discount the mail in vote during a pandemic.

    1. Yup.

      Or today’s announcement that DHS Sec. Wolf is in his position illegally. I’m wondering what impact that will have on whether all of the federal LE deployed around the country under Wolf’s orders were illegally deployed (there are several lawsuits about their deployment to Portland, etc.):

      Harry Cramer: “BREAKING: Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf (and Ken Cucinelli) are ineligible to be serving in their current roles because they were appointed illegally, the GAO rules. …” [link in the tweet to the GAO ruling]: https://twitter.com/HarrisonCramer/status/1294267501514240000

      Steve Vladeck (UT Austin Law prof.): “Holy cow: The *GAO* has determined that Chad Wolf was not lawfully named the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, and that @HomelandKen (who already is using an inappropriate title) wasn’t lawfully appointed even to his *proper* position at DHS. This is a remarkably big deal.
      “To clarify, the opinion concludes that Cuccinelli was not lawfully named as the “senior official performing the duties of the deputy secretary” (he’s already not the Acting Deputy). Nothing in the opinion calls into doubt his current position as principal deputy director of CIS.”

      And Trump has gutted diverse agencies by refusing to nominate people for positions.

      Just another day in the life of the corrupt Trump Admin.

        1. Mr. K:

          Well, it’s one legal opinion that we lawyers know from personal experience will either be wrong or right. So with the assurance of 50% confidence in the outcome, we’ll sally forth. This isn’t news; its propaganda — and half-baked at that.

          1. yeah good luck trying to make anything come of that in the next 80 days

            say did i mention that in Chinese, 80 is very propitious? ba-shi, words for 80, are homonym to “let it be”

            –AMEN!

    2. I raised the issue about Ted. Right here more than once
      So did Trump come to think of it
      He was a legit choice but his qualification under the constitution is a legit issue.

      1. He and Rubio are not eligible and has been pointed out many times. Quit with the political crap and do what is right.

  11. The problem with the way JT and the Courts have been interpreting the 14th Amendment resides in this question:

    “How did Abraham Lincoln become a U.S. Citizen?” If the 14th Amendment was necessary to establish birthplace citizenship, isn’t it fair to ask how babies obtained their citizenship before 1868?

    Clearly, the historical facts say that birthplace citizenship was already established in law before 1868, but up until the Civil Rights Act of 1866, slaves and Native Americans not taxed were not covered.

    The 14th Amendment corrected that policy to include the recently emancipated slaves (and taxed Indians). A mechanism needed to be written which expanded birthplace citizenship to include that group, but not everyone on the planet. Jus solis was adopted as a practical way to give inclusion, as it did not require birth records (records of parentage).

    Would the Ratifiers in 1868 have anticipated expansive re-interpretation of the 14th in our times? No way. What policy was it that they thought they were Ratifying?…the uneclipsable Citizenship rights of the freed slaves.

    That said, it is best to await a non-political-candidate case to test the full reach of birthplace citizenship.

  12. People need to be intelligent and understand our Constitutional principals and the laws governing citizenship. It really ought to be discussed in an honest and lawful way as part of our overall Immigration issues. If people start using racism for everything it will become old and a useless word. There is racism in this country for sure. It ought be used as part of real justice enforcement.

    Now that said…I am not one bit a fan of Senator Harris but the consideration of ruling her out as a candidate should be null and void. She been here long enough, served her community (for good or bad) so let the games begin!

  13. Again with the nonsensical legal trivia when there are so many more important issues with which to self gratify. Prof. Turley, rub one off on Trump’s current campaign to repeal the mandate for low flow shower heads. Low flow shower heads were mandated to save water. This is an environmentally driven move by those dastardly lefties. Trump is not only advocating the repeal of low flow shower heads cuz he hates environmentalists-‘commies every one’-but primarily because it makes it tough for him to do his do. Trump has stated that his hair has to be perfect and he just can’t efficiently wash out the spray, muck, gel, and other goop he uses to create his coif. This is an important issue as the hair and the orange skin stain are uniquely important to his base and stand as, perhaps, the most effective positive impact on them. They just kind of like the way he looks. Now, a legal beagle such as yourself, Turley, you should be able to link this to freedom of expression. Those dastardly lefty environmentalists are infringing on Trump’s freedom of expressing himself. Why it’s downright unAmerican.

    1. FBI LAWYER EXPECTED TO PLEAD GUILTY TO FAKING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF BOGUS TRUMP CAMPAIGN FISA WARRANT

      MORE CHARGES FROM DURHAM TO FOLLOW

      read the “Spun” and downplayed story from the NYT if you want the tepid version of this hot water development

  14. “this has been a debate that has been raised during prior elections over candidates ranging from Chester Arthur to Barack Obama to John McCain.”

    Which means that anyone who has been paying attention knows that Harris is eligible.

    It’s foolish for Newsweek to have published an article that suggests it’s unclear.

    “Congress inserted the words ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Those six words have perplexed scholars for 150 years.”

    Most aren’t perplexed. It’s a reference to children born to diplomats who have diplomatic immunity and aren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

    “I am concerned with the attacks on Newsweek and the author from a free speech standpoint”

    Why? No one is suggesting that it’s unconstitutional for Newsweek to publish it. Only that it was bad judgment, as this issue has already been discussed multiple times (as Turley himself notes).

    “a North Carolina professor saying the entire Trump defense team would face bar charges”

    In fact, multiple complaints were filed with the DC Bar, and we do not know their dispositions. From what I’ve heard, disbarment investigations can take years.

    1. ethics charges used as lawfare are old hat

      the most notable ethics charges against an American politician the past 30 years are one and one only:

      BILL CLINTON WAS DISBARRED FROM HIS FORMER HOME STATE ARKANSAS FOR PERJURY

      95% of the rest of bar charges aimed at politicians are dreck and go hardly anwhere

  15. “Natural born citizen” has never been constitutionally challenged successfully yet. Most of the prior cases were tossed out for lack of standing, but never on the merits. Kamala Harris’ appointment to VP is a good time to finally address it once and for all.

    1. The argument is not “laid out” in that article, the guys just says that natural born means born to citizens, he cites nothing to support it.

Leave a Reply