Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to serve as President or Vice President. She is not a “natural born” citizen. Neither of her parents were American at time of her birth. Those 2 Offices are the only two that the Constitution says MUST be Natural Born Citizens!
There is no argument except the one that is used by defeatist Conservatives.. "well we let Hussein Obama do it"! OK BUT NEVER AGAIN .. NEVER AGAIN!
Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for holding the office of president or vice president. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT WE MUST FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.. THEN WE CANNOT ALLOW EXCEPTIONS.
Children of foreign nationals inherit the
nationality of their foreign national parent(s).
Natural born citizen means born here of citizen parents.
People born with divided loyalties, allegiance and citizenship are not
naturally Americans.
The children of foreign nationals are precisely who the founders were excluding
from the office.
Only when one cannot be anything else can one be a natural born citizen. No foreign birth.
No foreign parent(s)
No foreign citizenship(s)
No foreign influence on the Presidency is what John Jay stated in a letter to
George Washington as the reason for insisting on a natural born citizen.
Here is the birth Certificate. There is NO DOUBT... PERIOD!
It appears Kamala Harris is attempting to pull a Barack Hussein in
2020, failing to meet the citizenship requirement to serve as president,
but running anyway. Why not? Hussein got away with it. The “natural born citizen” language in the Constitution, as
inconvenient as it may be, is where both Hussein and Harris fall short
in qualifying to serve as president.
Now the Left will use their tried and true but Tired old DOG WHISTLE THAT TURNS REPUBLICANS IN TO CHIHUAHUAS.. IF YOU QUESTION A NON WHITE OF ANYTHING THEY DON'T LIKE.. YOU ARE A RACIST. REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES RUN TO THEIR CORNERS AND BEG FOR MERCY. NO NO NO.. I AM NOT A RACISTS.. I APOLOGIZE! FORGIVE ME!
I DO NOT I WILL NOT. EVER! I DON'T CARE WHO THE HELL CALLS ME A RACIST! FUCK THEM! WELL THERE ARE THE FACTS!
HERE ARE UNDENIABLE FACTS! Kamala Harris Neither of her parents were US citizens when she was
born, this automatically disqualifying her from serving as president. As with
all children born to foreigners in the United States, Harris is a
“naturalized” citizen, a so-called “anchor baby,” not a “natural born”
citizen, a night and day difference in terms of qualifying to serve as
President of the United States as outlined in Section 1, Article 2 of
our Constitution. From Kamala Harris’ Wikipedia page: “Kamala Harris was born on October 20, 1964, in Oakland, California, to a TamilIndian mother and a Jamaican father.”
HERE ARE THE FACTS! 1. Kamala Harris is an anchor baby, born to a Caucasian Indian mother and a Jamaican father. Until and unless Harris can prove otherwise, this appears to be true, as Harris’ birth certificate, below, proves. 2. Kamala Harris is not African-American, she is Jamaican-Indian. Technically,
true, although I believe Harris is leaning on her Jamaican heritage to
claim African descent, as many Jamaicans were descendants of African
slaves. 3. Kamala Harris is not eligible to hold the position of President of the United States. True, according to all that we know and Section 1, Article 2 of our Constitution. "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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who
shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen
Years a Resident within the United States."
Information as to when Kamala Harris’s parents got their US
citizenship seems to be buried so we cannot find it. Its a Typical Lefty Trick. They did that with Hussein Obama
But we know that
1) her mother immigrated to the US in 1960 from India and
2) her father
immigrated to the US in 1961 from Jamaica.
Usually people immigrate to the US when they
get their working visas or Green Cads.
It takes 5-6 years to get a US
citizenship after getting a Green Card. So, in the best case scenario, if her
parents her Green Cards and not just visas, they could not get their citizenship
until 1965-1966.
This means that when Harris was born in 1964, she was a daughter of two
foreign nationals, not US citizens, who were residing here on visas.
For this
reason Kamala Harris is a US citizen ) Like ANY ANCHOR BABY! ) but is not a Natural born Citizen and CANNOT BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW...
be eligible to run for President. This has nothing to do with race, it has
everything to do with nationality. At her birth she inherited Indian and
Jamaican citizenship and has a split allegiance.
IF THE LEFT'S LOGIC IS TO BE USED.. THIS MAN TERRORIST PREACHER
Anwar al-Awlaki couldalso Run to be President of the United States by Birthright Citizenship!
A U.S. citizen born to Yemeni parents, Awlaki spent the early years of
his life in the United States before his family moved back to Yemen. Then he came back Just Like Kamala Harris did from Canada!
Awlaki became a citizen because his Yemeni mother happened to usher him
into the world while his father, a scientist from a prominent Yemeni
family was studying at New
Mexico State University. BIRTHRIGHT ANCHOR BABY CITIZENSHIP!
1. The Wikipedia entry states that Harris’s mother, Dr. Shyamala G. Harris, was from India, arriving in Berkeley, CA in 1960. Dr. Harris passed away in February 2009. Her “Legacy” obituary states that she arrived alone in the U.S. at the age of 19 after having earned her undergraduate degree from Delhi University.
2. Kamala’s father, Donald Harris, is a retired Stanford University economics professor whose biography affirms
that he arrived in the U.S. in 1961 as an “Issa Scholar” from Jamaica.
It adds that he was born in Jamaica and naturalized in the U.S. but
does not provide the year.Neither parent reportedly was present in the U.S. as a legal resident for five years prior to Harris’s birth, a requirement to apply for naturalization!
After her parents divorced when she was
seven, Wikipedia reports, Harris’s mother was granted full custody of
her two daughters, after which they moved to Quebec, Canada. Dr.
Harris’s obituary, reposted at SFGate on March 22, 2009, states that her
medical research took her to McGill University in Montreal for 16
years. It further reads, in part:
Her passion for
science was augmented by a fervent commitment to social justice. While a
student at Berkeley in the ’60s, she became fully engaged in the Civil
Rights Movement, leading to a lifelong fight against injustice, racial
discrimination and intolerance. She instilled these values in her
daughters, who in turn have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of
justice and equality – one as the first female elected District Attorney
of SF and the other as vice president of Peace and Social Justice at
the Ford Foundation in NY.
According to Wikipedia, Harris graduated from Westmount High School in Westmount, Quebec, presumably in 1981 or 1982. However, Harris’s U.S. Senate biography does not say
that she lived and obtained most of her public education in Canada: ASK
WHY !! ITS TO COVER UP THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE QUALIFICATION OF
"Natural Born Citizen"
SO LETS READ UP ON FACTS!
Senator Kamala Harris talks in her bio how she was born in and
grew up in CA. But, she did not grow up there during her formative
years! She is engaging in clever wordsmith-ing deception about her
early life narrative. She is avoiding any focus on how much of her early
life was spent living in Canada.
She is also avoiding transparency
about her parents citizenship status when Kamala was born. Kamala
actually spent all her formative years in Canada with her foreign born
mother when her mother moved there when Kamala was age 7. She graduated
from high school in Canada.
Senator Kamala Harris is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutional standards since both of her parents were foreign nationals
who were NOT U.S. citizens when Senator Harris was born in the USA. She
is missing two legs of the three legs of the ‘natural born Citizen’
test. She is of course a basic “Citizen” at birth per the Wong Kim Ark legal decision by the U.S. Supreme Court of 1898,
and as such she is eligible to be a U.S. Senator, but she is not a
“natural born Citizen” at birth, and thus is NOT eligible to be
President and Commander in Chief of our military or the Vice President, per our U.S. Constitution. She inherited multiple allegiances at birth due to her parents being foreign nationals living in the USA when she was born. Senator Kamala Harris did not have sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to the USA and only the USA.
Some other politicians besides Kamala Harris (D) in the two
major political parties who have been mentioned for future election to
high national political office, who are also not a “natural born
Citizen” to constitutional standards are: Marco Rubio (R), Ted Cruz (R), Bobby Jindal (R), and Nikki Haley (R).
Both major political parties are choosing to ignore the founders and
framers intent and understanding of what a “natural born Citizen” is in
order to run candidates that they believe are very marketable political
candidates. This started in a major way in the 2008 election cycle with Obama vs McCain.
U.S. Senator Kamala Harris is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen‘ of USA – NOT Eligible to be President and Commander-in-Chief of Our Military per U.S. Constitution
Senator Kamala Harris’s staff has refused to answer any questions
regarding the citizenship status of her parents when she was born. The
normal path to becoming a naturalized U.S. Citizen takes five years. Kamala Harris was born in 1964. Her father emigrated from Jamaica to the USA in 1961. Her mother emigrated from India to the USA in 1960.
Thus there was not sufficient time for either of Kamala’s parents to
become naturalized U.S. Citizens. Kamala’s father eventually became a
naturalized U.S. Citizen per his bio. It is not known at this time if
Kamala’s mother ever became a naturalized U.S. Citizen. She moved to
Canada with Kamala when Kamala was about seven years old. It is possible
that Kamala’s mother might have naturalized at some point as a Canadian
citizen. Kamala Harris’s mother is now deceased.
As I said in the first sentence, Senator Harris is not being
transparent on this issue and her office staff has refused to answer any
questions on this subject. Given Kamala Harris’s year of birth, and her
parents emigration years, she was born in the USA to two foreign
nationals and thus inherited their respective birth nation’s citizenship
when she was born, in addition to being a basic Citizen by being born
in the USA to aliens legally domiciled here. Thus Senator Kamala Harris
was born with citizenship and required allegiance at birth to three
countries. This is hardly what the founders and framers intended when they selected the “natural born Citizen” requirement
for the person who would in the future be permitted to be the President
and Commander in Chief of our military, once the founding generation
was gone.
As per ‘Principles of Natural Law‘ in place at the time of the founding of our country and when the founding documents including the U.S. Constitution were written, a ‘natural born Citizen’ is one born in the country to parents who are both Citizens (born Citizens or naturalized Citizens) of that country when their child is born in the country. See ‘The Three Legged Stool Test‘
for a graphic presentation of this constitutional requirement as to who
can be President and Commander in Chief or our military. See the Euler Diagram shown to the right for a logic diagram presentation of this constitutional
Now some Ignorant Idiots will tell you that because of the Kim Wong Ark Vs US that she IS A CITIZEN. Yes she is a CITIZEN .. like anchor babies are.. but NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States
imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure
due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to
understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning
what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of
Independence, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires
detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual
suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.
What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth? Unlikely in the strict sense because we know one can be native born
and yet not a native born citizen of this country. There were even
disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the
territories were born citizens of the United States (they were generally
referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make
no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as
Madison explained it, the “powers delegated by the proposed
Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined,” and those
“which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and
indefinite.” Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was simply an exercise of a States “numerous and indefinite”
powers. Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State
Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a
State. James Madison said citizenship rules “have obtained in some of
the States,” and “if such a law existed in South Carolina, it might have
prevented this question from ever coming before us” (question of Rep.
William Smith being a citizen or not). Framer James Wilson said, “a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union.”
These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV,
Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was
required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the
United States. Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of
the crown was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual
allegiance to the King, however natural citizenship via birth could
require being born to a British subject depending on the era in
question. After independence this perpetual allegiance to the crown was
abandoned for the principle of expatriation. It should be noted this allegiance due under England’s common law and
American law are of two different species. Under the common law one
owed a personal allegiance to the King as an individual upon birth for
which could never be thrown off. Under the American system there was no
individual ruler to owe a perpetual personal allegiance to. Furthermore, unlike the British practice, States required everyone
including aliens to take an oath of allegiance to the State as a
condition of residency. Children born to these residents were considered
born into the allegiance of the State. In addition to this, States also
had specific laws that banned citizenship to alien born who were not
resident aliens who had declared their allegiance. New York for example,
responded through enactment of a law to the ruling in Lynch v. Clarke
(1844) that had used common law rules of citizenship by birth to
specifically exclude children born to “transient aliens, and of alien
public ministers and consuls, etc.” In other words, unlike under the common law, birth by itself did not create allegiance to anyone due merely to locality. Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”? It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the
old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British
doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders
considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process
required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other
governments and pledge their sole allegiance to this one before finally
becoming a citizen. House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “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.” It
wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a
citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims
him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal
obligations, e.g., military duty. Under the old English common law, birth was viewed as enjoining a
“perpetual allegiance” upon all to the King that could never be severed
or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual
allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country;
often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense.
America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born
subject” in June of 1812. Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of
the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming
naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels
blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American
ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British
born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be
British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on
behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war. Fourteenth Amendment Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born
citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment
certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written
national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or
naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born
“subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States – a condition not
required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to
the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to
anybody else,” which is vastly different from local jurisdiction due to
physical location alone. This national rule prevents
us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because
it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one
claim of allegiance. The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard,
said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so
as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United
States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the
United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by
the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” This remark by Howard puts his earlier citizenship clause remark into
proper context: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the
United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of
ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the
United States, but will include every other class of persons.” United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S.
Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the
Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction”
under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else.” Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means
the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens,
i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation
since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other
nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes arguing
the physical presence of being subject to laws silly because being
subject to another countries laws while visiting makes no change to an
aliens allegiance to their native country. Natural-Born Citizen Defined One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was
natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If
a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for
example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads
us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the
founders recognized and embraced. Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to
establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s
citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth.
This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard
said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue
of “natural law and national law.” The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between
nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is
to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent.
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other
nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:
Does the gentleman mean that any person,
born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no
law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the
Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of
the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits
of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other
sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white?
There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not
recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess.,
407 (1862))
Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural
word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the
child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be
born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to
the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to
be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the
allegiance of the Nation. As
the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of
location never changes or alters a persons allegiance to their country
of origin except by acting in accordance to written law in throwing off
their previous allegiance and consenting to a new one. This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to
anyone else was the effect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States
to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George
Tucker:
That provision in the constitution which
requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he
were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,)
is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever
it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague.
The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be
too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which
foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign
power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of
the most consummate policy and wisdom. …The title of king, prince,
emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would
have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their
common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To
have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited
and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.
Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was
designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington
warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a
variety of evils,” and goes on to say:
Sympathy for the favorite nation,
facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases
where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities
of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels
and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It
leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied
to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the
concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been
retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to
retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who
devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or
sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes
even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense
of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable
zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition,
corruption, or infatuation.
What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require
the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his
American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born
anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his
native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life
to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and
intrigues, and thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a
naturalized citizen. Conclusion Extending citizenship to non-citizens through birth based solely upon
locality is nothing more than mere municipal law that has no
extra-territorial effect as proven from the English practice of it. On
the other hand, citizenship by descent through the father is natural law
and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn’t recognize
citizenship of children born wherever to their own citizens?). Thus, a
natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is recognized by law of
nations rather than mere local recognition. Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations
for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every
person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such
States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners
or representatives of foreign Governments.”* When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a
natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of
where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship
through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law
whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had
become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a
citizen father. Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member. * Temporary sojourners like transient aliens were a
description applied to aliens other than resident aliens. The
difference being temporary aliens were here for temporary purposes, such
as work, travel, visitation or school, who had no desire to become
citizens or was prevented from becoming citizens by law. Resident aliens
were those who desired to become citizens and had renounced their prior
allegiances and had taken the legal steps to become citizens or reside
within some state per state law. UPDATE: In regards to questions about the citizenship of the mother:
Mothers citizenship rarely ever influenced the citizenship of their
children except in certain situations such as the father dying before
the child was born or when the identity of the father was unknown.
So Patriots do not let the lefty dog whistle scare you into submission.
Here is the Supreme Court Decision in 1874 defining Natural Born Citizen
Minor is without a doubt the MOST important Supreme Court decision on the subject of what a Natural Born Citizen is. Those that want to muddy the waters on this subject will do anything to make it irrelevant. It is the one decision they fear the most. They will bring out English Common law, Blackstone anything they can think of to muddy the waters and they will fight to the death on this subject.
The nomenclature of the times of the Founding fathers was Vattel.
Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874), U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court ruled unanimously:
"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 (plural) who were its CITIZENS (plural) became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Minor was unanimous and written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite; a unanimous opinion by the Chief is the strongest statement the Court can make.
Here is the nomenclature of the times of the Founding fathers. This is the language our founding fathers followed when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
Vattel`s The Law of Nations or the Principles of the Laws of Nature: “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.”
All of the cases listed below refer to Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) as the authority of citizens and Natural Born Citizen
Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), an essential case which confirms Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship:
“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;” (Emphasis added.)
Lockwood directly cites Minor as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship
City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) because it cites Minor as a continuing precedent on the voting rights issue 60 years after the adoption of the 19th Amendment. This kills the argument that Minor was overruled by the 19th Amendment. Here is the relevant passage as it appears at Justia today un-scrubbed:
“More than 100 years ago, the Court unanimously held that “the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone. . . .” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 178. See Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U.S. at 360 U. S. 50-51. It is for the States “to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised . . . , absent, of course, the discrimination which the Constitution condemns,” ibid.”
Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’m of Montana, 436 U.S 371 (1978),
Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937),
US v. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299 (1941),
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404 (1935),
Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911),
Hague v. Committee For Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939),
Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245 (1934),
Harris v. Mcrae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980),
Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S 47 (1907),
Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904),
Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621 (1969),
Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U.S. 705 (1962),
N.Y. Ex Rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928),
Slaughter-House cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873),
Rodriguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982),
