

Regular readers of CHQ will recall the 2016 controversy over whether Senator Ted Cruz was a “natural born citizen” of the United States and thus eligible to be President or whether he was citizen not natural born, and thus, according to the Constitution’s Article 2, Section 1, not eligible to hold the office.

At the time we argued that Sen. Cruz was eligible and the notion that there were three types of citizenship – natural born, citizen not natural born and naturalized citizen – was not supported by either history or legal precedent.

However, since the Cruz controversy there has been a great deal of new scholarship and commentary regarding whether Democratic Senator Kamala Harris likewise meets the test that has caused us to reopen the discussion and invite CHQ readers to weigh-in.

While there are many good articles on the subject we found this one by Thomas Sayre to be among the most cogent and well-documented.

According to Mr. Sayre, the U.S. Constitution says 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 Constitution was later amended to extend this requirement to the Vice President.

All persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution are long dead. Only the "natural born citizen" qualification remains in practical effect.

The key question is whether Kamala Harris is a "natural born citizen" of the United States. According to the clearly written definition, which has been acknowledged for over two centuries, argues Mr. Sayre, if one of her parents was not a US Citizen at the time of her birth, she is not a natural born citizen.

When one examines the definition of the term and the purpose for including it in the Constitution, this becomes clear says Mr. Sayre.

The Definition:

"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." --James Wilson, Of the Study of Law in the United States, 1790

What is the source of the term, "natural born citizen"? It is defined in the internationally published reference book, "Law of Nations", penned by Emmerich de Vattel in 1758. The definition states:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

This is the one and only definition of the term, understood in international and US law, that existed when the Constitution was crafted. Its meaning has remained consistent for centuries as recognized by US law.

"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787." - Constitution Society regarding "Law of Nations"

Did The Framers Rely Upon Law of Nations?

The historical record shows that "Law of Nations" was a primary reference used to craft the US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. In 1755, as the Founders determined to create their own nation from scratch, Benjamin Franklin received three copies of the original French edition from the editor Dumas for use by the Continental Congress.

"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress..." - Benjamin Franklin’s letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

"Law of Nations" was in use by many other nations as well, printed in several languages including French, English and German, to ensure heads of state understood principles and language to be used in international relations. It is still in print today as a reference book and is still used by the Supreme Court in Constitutional rulings.

By 1780, "Law of Nations" was a standard textbook in American universities. By 1787, it was well understood by the Framers of the Constitution and the nation as a whole. There was no need to debate the meaning of "natural born citizen" as the Framers crafted the Constitution. It was a commonly understood term.

Law of Nations is the only reference book named in the Constitution itself, empowering the Federal Government to enforce its clauses:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; - US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8

Kamala Harris was born October 20, 1964, in Oakland, California. Her mother was a Tamil Indian, her father a Jamaican. Both were immigrants who had not naturalized, thus were not citizens, when Kamala was born.

As the definition of "natural born citizen" states, the person must be born to parents who are citizens.

This fact alone is enough to conclude, without question, that Harris is not eligible to be President of the United States.

You could stop reading at this point. You have the correct answer noted Mr. Sayre.

If that is the case, then the law will be upheld, Harris will be barred from taking office, everything works out. Right?

Perhaps not. You may have noticed, wrote Mr. Sayre, there is a great effort afoot to concoct alternate meanings of the term and confuse the issue to allow candidates such as Harris to take office. This strategy worked for Barack Hussein Obama, so it will be used again.

That's right, Mr. Obama also could not qualify and he knew it. His father was not a US Citizen when he was born. So, his teams of lawyers spent years blocking court cases that tried to resolve his eligibility long after he was allowed to take office. The fight began when a Democrat attorney, Philip Berg, attempted to force his own Party to vet their candidate's eligibility. See the problem?

Why A Natural Born Citizen?

So, what does it matter, this difference between merely being born a citizen or meeting the much more strict requirements of a "natural born citizen"? The person is an American either way, right? The Framers of the Constitution understood the difference and so should we.

A person born an American, with a foreign parent, is born subject to the laws of another nation. Born in America to Mexican parents? The child is born under Mexican as well as American jurisdiction. The child is born with foreign allegiance. That can create legal and personal conflict in times of war.

The Framers understood that a person born in the USA to a British father would be a British subject, according to British law. If that person rose to the rank of Commander in Chief of the American military and went to war against England or its vassal states, that person would commit treason against his King. His motives may be conflicted and he would certainly be treated differently from regular prisoners of war if captured. He would be hanged for treason.

In the War of 1812, when America fought to finally throw off British common law claims over Americans, the US required all officers on US ships and 2/3 of the sailors to be natural born citizens of the USA. They could not have a foreign parent. Thus, they could engage in war without conflicting loyalties or threat of hanging for treason.

In peacetime, the President with foreign affinity may use his office to conduct affairs more favorably to his preferred foreign state instead of the USA. He may hold notions such as "Dreams from my Father", a love and loyalty to the Father's nation and ideology.

Is the President loyal to the Russians because of a Russian father? Perhaps loyal to Marxist or Islamic ideology because of the ideological loyalties of a Father who had not embraced Americanism and passed it down? The office of President allows a lot of leeway to favor those non-American loyalties and further their interests at the expense of America.

The President with mixed loyalties has great power to do harm. So, yes, this natural born citizen requirement is as important today as it was when written into the Constitution concluded Mr. Sayre.

Mr. Sayre’s commentary about divided loyalties is particularly applicable to Senator Harris, who spent much of her youth in Canada, where her mother was a professor.

From our perspective, the circumstances of Kamala Harris’s birth amount to birth tourism where the child is born in the geographic confines of the United States for the sole purpose of obtaining American citizenship and then whisked off to another country, only to return when and if being an American is economically advantageous.

Applying the logic, and the historical and legal arguments outlined in Mr. Sayre’s article to Sen. Kamala Harris leads us to conclude she is not a “natural born” citizen, rather, she is more like America’s most high profile and least grateful anchor baby.

We urge CHQ readers to go to Mr. Sayre’s article, “Kamala Harris Is Not Eligible To Be President - The Natural Born Citizen Requirement,” read the complete article and let us know what you think.