Let's fact-check and debunk the claims made in the article and write three replies:
Fact-Check and Debunk:
Kamala Harris’s Citizenship: Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California, on October 20, 1964. According to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural-born citizen, regardless of the parents' citizenship.
Dual Citizenship: While it is possible for someone to be born with dual citizenship, it does not disqualify them from being a natural-born citizen of the United States. The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit dual citizens from serving as President or Vice President.
Historical and Legal Precedent: There is no legal precedent or interpretation of the "natural-born citizen" clause that requires a candidate's parents to be U.S. citizens. The key requirement is being born on U.S. soil, which Kamala Harris fulfills.
Supreme Court's Stance: The Supreme Court has never ruled that children born in the U.S. to foreign parents are not natural-born citizens. Previous cases, including those involving Barack Obama, have reinforced the understanding that birthright citizenship qualifies as natural-born citizenship.
Replies:
Reply 1:
@CDRKerchner Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, CA, making her a natural-born citizen per the 14th Amendment. Dual citizenship does not disqualify one from U.S. presidency. The Constitution and legal precedent are clear on this. Let's focus on facts, not misinformation.
Reply 2:
@CDRKerchner The term "natural-born citizen" includes anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parents' nationality. Kamala Harris was born in California, making her fully eligible. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this interpretation. Stop spreading falsehoods.
Reply 3:
@CDRKerchner Kamala Harris is a natural-born citizen by virtue of being born in the U.S. The Constitution doesn't bar dual citizens from presidency. Claims otherwise are unfounded and misleading. Let's respect our laws and focus on real issues.
Detailed Debunking:
Claim: Kamala Harris is not a "natural-born citizen" because her parents were foreign nationals, making her ineligible to be President or Vice President.
Legal and Constitutional Background:
14th Amendment: The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, 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." Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California, making her a citizen at birth under this amendment.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898): This landmark Supreme Court case confirmed that anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural-born citizen, regardless of the nationality of their parents. The Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese nationals, was a U.S. citizen by birth. This case solidified the interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana (2008): The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that individuals born in the United States are considered natural-born citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents. This case directly addressed the eligibility of presidential candidates under the "natural-born citizen" clause.
Debunking Specific Claims:
Dual Citizenship:
Claim: Harris's dual citizenship with Jamaica disqualifies her from being a natural-born citizen.
Fact: The concept of dual citizenship does not affect the status of being a natural-born citizen of the United States. The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit dual citizens from holding the office of President or Vice President. Dual citizenship is a separate matter from natural-born citizenship and does not negate the rights conferred by birth on U.S. soil.
Foreign Influence and Allegiance:
Claim: Harris owes allegiance to Jamaica and the English Crown due to her father's Jamaican citizenship.
Fact: Allegiance and citizenship are distinct legal concepts. A person born in the United States is not considered to owe allegiance to any foreign power simply because of their parents' nationality. The 14th Amendment and subsequent case law make it clear that birthright citizenship is not diminished by the nationality of one's parents. The concept of "natural-born citizen" is rooted in being born on U.S. soil, not in the citizenship or allegiance of one’s parents.
Supreme Court and Standing:
Claim: The Supreme Court has avoided ruling on the issue of natural-born citizenship.
Fact: The Supreme Court has addressed the broader implications of birthright citizenship through cases like U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. While the Court has not specifically ruled on a modern presidential candidate's eligibility, the existing legal framework supports the understanding that being born in the United States qualifies one as a natural-born citizen.
Conclusion:
Kamala Harris meets all constitutional requirements to be considered a natural-born citizen of the United States. She was born in Oakland, California, making her a citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment. The arguments against her eligibility based on her parents' nationality or her potential dual citizenship are legally unfounded and contradicted by established Supreme Court rulings and constitutional principles.
Sources:
14th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898):
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/
Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana (2008):
https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/p ... 801jgb.pdf
This detailed legal and historical context demonstrates that Kamala Harris is unequivocally a natural-born citizen and fully eligible to serve as President or Vice President of the United States.
Expanded Detailed Debunking:
Claim: Kamala Harris is not a "natural-born citizen" because her parents were foreign nationals, making her ineligible to be President or Vice President.
Further Legal and Constitutional Background:
Natural-born Citizen Clause: The U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, states that “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.” The interpretation of "natural-born citizen" has been consistently understood to mean anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' citizenship.
Elk v. Wilkins (1884): Although this case initially dealt with the citizenship status of Native Americans, the Supreme Court’s discussion reinforced that birth within the territorial limits of the United States grants citizenship. The decision clarified that allegiance at birth, as mentioned in the 14th Amendment, pertains to anyone born under U.S. jurisdiction.
Minor v. Happersett (1875): This case addressed voting rights but mentioned in passing that "natural-born citizens" are born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. However, this was not a binding definition and has been overshadowed by later, more relevant rulings such as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
Additional Debunking Specific Claims:
Foreign Parentage and Natural-born Citizenship:
Claim: Harris is disqualified as a natural-born citizen because her parents were not U.S. citizens at her birth.
Fact: The notion that both parents must be U.S. citizens for their child to be a natural-born citizen is a misinterpretation. The prevailing legal standard, reinforced by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, is that anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural-born citizen, irrespective of their parents' citizenship. This interpretation aligns with the principles of jus soli (right of the soil), which the U.S. follows.
Historical Interpretation:
Claim: The Founders intended for natural-born citizens to be born to two U.S. citizen parents.
Fact: Historical interpretations and writings, such as those by early Supreme Court justices and framers like James Madison, do not conclusively support this claim. The Constitutional Convention debates did not specify that both parents must be citizens. Instead, the emphasis was on preventing foreign-born individuals from holding the highest office, ensuring loyalty to the U.S. by birth.
Key Legal Precedents:
Schneider v. Rusk (1964): This case dealt with the rights of naturalized citizens but affirmed the principle that the rights of citizenship by birth (natural-born) are inviolable under the Constitution.
Rogers v. Bellei (1971): While this case addressed citizenship issues for those born abroad to U.S. citizens, it underscored the importance of birthright citizenship for those born within the U.S. The distinction made here highlights the broader protection and recognition of citizenship by birth within U.S. territories.
Conclusion:
Kamala Harris's eligibility as a natural-born citizen is firmly grounded in the Constitution and upheld by multiple Supreme Court rulings. The arguments questioning her eligibility based on her parents' nationality are not supported by legal precedent or constitutional interpretation.
Additional Sources:
Elk v. Wilkins (1884):
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/
Minor v. Happersett (1875):
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/
Schneider v. Rusk (1964):
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/377/163/
Rogers v. Bellei (1971):
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/
This expanded context and additional legal precedents further solidify the fact that Kamala Harris is a natural-born citizen and fully eligible to serve as President or Vice President of the United States.
@Orly_licious
@Orly_licious
s titular Mama June in Fogbow's Favourite Show™ Mama June: From Not To Hot! Fogbow's Theme Song™ Edith Massey's "I Got The Evidence!" 
Philly Boondoggle
