HERE WE GO AGAIN....Anyone that tells you Kamala Harris is eligible to be VP or President arm yourself with the facts and the truth - It is critical that you carefully read all of the links

“On every question of construction, (Let us) carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson obviously knew people would stray from the original intent in order to fit a political narrative)

---

Well the Kamala supporters are running damage control for Kamala Harris as they did for Obama and their arguments do not hold up to the facts. The fact that Kamala is not a natural born citizen is starting to circulate and the left must shut down the truth and of course they are calling anyone that says she is not eligible is a “racist.” That is the lefts favorite word to shut people up even when speaking the truth. So the left is using 2 parts of the Constitution to “prove” that Kamala is eligible for the offices of VP and President. But there is a bit of a reading comprehension issue among the constitutionally illiterate. Plus they do not know the history of the Constitution and have obviously never read the Federalist Papers (which explain the Amendments) or the debates that took place back during the formation of the Constitution.

1. They claim Article II Sec. 1 of the Constitution which says: Article II, Section 1 of the 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” proves that Kamala is eligible due to the word CITIZEN in Article II, Section 1. But they conveniently fail to recognize 9 little words that follow: “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” it does not say AFTER the adoption of the Constitution. This was a grandfather clause for our founders.

Quote from Joanna Martin, J.D (pen name Publius Huldah).: Remember! None of our early Presidents were “natural born Citizens”, even though they were all born here. They were all born as subjects of the British Crown. They became naturalized citizens with the Declaration of Independence. That is why it was necessary to provide a grandfather clause for them. The eligible citizens they speak of in Art. II Sec. 1 were our founding fathers and it pertains to no one else.

2. Then they cite the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment has 2 parts in the meaning of citizen and it is the 2nd part people conveniently elect to ignore (“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which will be covered later in this post) Do you see the words NATURAL BORN CITIZEN in the 14th Amendment? No, you do not. It clearly says CITIZEN. The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War to give citizenship to the recently freed slaves. There is clearly a difference between being a citizen and being a natural born citizen because our Constitution makes it obvious. To be a member of Congress one of the requirements is that you only need to be a CITIZEN but in Article. II Sec. 1 in order to be VP or President you must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The Constitution is a COMPACT/CONTRACT between the states which created the federal government and the states delegated a small set of powers (Art. 1 Sec. 8) to the federal government. I use this as an example to demonstrate that you cannot just arbitrarily change the Constitution. It is NOT a living document that changes with the times. It is today what it was when it was originally written as are all contracts. Except for those that wish to make it fit an agenda by ignoring the original intent. SO, lets look at the meaning of NBC at the time of our founders.

In respect to the facts below... two legal conditions are critical to the matter

1. The meaning of a word or term that appears in any legal document, in this case, the US Constitution Article II, is the meaning at the time of the adoption, not the meaning 248 years later after decades of word-smithing by "experts" intent upon undermining the meaning and purpose of the term via politically motivated opinions.

2. The true meaning must be consistent with the true intent of the word or term, as it existed at the time of the adoption. The NBC term was placed in Article II for a very specific reason and purpose, which is known due to the recording of history at the time the term was placed in Article II as a condition for the highest political office in our land. The source of the term as it was added to Article II is also clearly recorded in history, The Law of Nations.

All three of the definitions below are "natural born Citizens" under The Law of Nations (a book used by our founders to help in the construction of our founding documents)

1. The natural offspring of a legal U.S. Citizen Father.

2. The natural offspring of a legal U.S. Citizen Father and Mother.

3. The natural offspring of a legal U.S. Citizen Father and Mother, born on American soil.

While all three of the above birth circumstances qualify as a "natural born Citizen" in the USA, they all meet the definition and purpose of the Article II NBC clause because in all three cases, the child is born to a legal U.S. Citizen Father.

1. “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.” – Section 212

2. “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” – Section 212

3. “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.” – Section 212

4. “These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers;” Section 213 pertaining to “inhabitants” or foreigners allowed by the state to settle and stay in the country. - END

As you can see in the days of our founders natural born citizenship was conveyed from FATHER to the children regardless of place of birth.

People can have their own opinion or lies but they cannot make up the own truth. Again, the constitutionally illiterate have not done their historical research. They are passing on the lies TOLD to them about the Constitution in order to push an agenda. Some members of Congress have tried 8 times to have the NBC requirement removed from the Constitution. The last time was when Obama was a Senator and of course he voted for the removal. Gee, I wonder why? He knew and those that supported the attempt to remove that requirement knew Obama was not a NBC and where he was born (if they truly understood the Constitution) was not the issue. The REAL issue was his father was a British subject. Both of Kamala’s parents were in the US on TEMPORARY foreign student Visa’s when Kamala was born. She is not eligible, nor was Obama, Haley, Ramaswamy, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Shiva.

HERE (Babies Don’t Provide Anchors) is a short article which includes a link to the US Senate debates of 1866 (go to the center column and start reading under the subheading of RECONSTRUCTION to the end of the 3rd column. The US Senate debate of 1866 explains the meaning of citizen very clearly. As Joanna Martin (retired JAG lawyer and a REAL constitutional expert) stated it is “fascinating.” You see you cannot understand the Constitution unless you learn the history of its creation and the meaning of the contract at the time the contract was written. A contract is NOT a living document and that pertains to all contracts. Read and comprehend clearly.

If you are truly interested in the truth PLEASE also read the article below that was linked in the article above. LINKED ARTICLE 1 (Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny) by Edward Erler of Hillsdale College.

Here is an important excerpt from that article which refers to the US Senate Debate of 1866

Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S. PLEASE take the time to read the US Senate Debate of 1866 above. This is just an excerpt.

Here is an excerpt from another article written by Joanna Martin (The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew which is also included as a link in Babies Don't Provide Anchors) regarding definitions:

Word Definitions:

Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time.  “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”.

Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.

So!  In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it.  Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.

So!  Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used?  Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?

PLEASE SHARE WITH ANYONE THAT YOU CONSIDER IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLITERATE ESPECIALLY your local, state and federal legislators - Help them learn the truth and dispel the lies.

---

Thank you, Karen Bracken