Here we go again, faced with a candidate running for the U.S. Presidency who is NOT A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. I repeat – Kamala Harris is ineligible to become the President of the United States, even if she wins the election (by hook or by crook) because, although Kamala Harris might be A CITIZEN of the United States, "SHE NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN." Update: Kamala Harris probably isn't even a Citizen of the United States because no proof exists that her parents were ever Naturalized and nothing can be found to suggest that Kamala Harris has completed her pathway to citizenship after turning age 21 and then by swearing an Oath of Allegiance to the United States.  Send us proof to the contrary, please.

French statesman Frederic Bastiat warned us of the dangers of perverting the law in his imitable pamphlet called The Law first published in 1850. It begins as follows: “The law perverted! The law — and, in its wake, all the collective forces of the nation — the law, I say, not only diverted from its proper direction, but made to pursue one entirely contrary! The law become the tool of every kind of avarice, instead of being its check! The law guilty of that very iniquity which it was its mission to punish! Truly, this is a serious fact, if it exists, and one to which I feel bound to call the attention of my fellow citizens.”

In an effort to clarify the issue of the Natural-Born Citizen, Team Republic studied a relevant US Supreme Court case called Minor v Happersett 88 US 162 (1874). 

Here’s an overview of some of the commentary written by the Justices in this unanimously decided US Supreme Court decision called Minor v Happersett.

• 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 who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens.

• Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person” (the nomenclature of the time) might be admitted as a Citizen of the United States.

• The children of such persons so Naturalized should be considered Citizens of the United States, with requirements as follows, that they:

  • Dwell in the United States

  • Are under 21 years of age at the time of such Naturalization.

• Children of Citizens of the United States should be considered Natural-Born Citizens even under the following circumstances:

  • Born beyond the sea 

  • Born out of the limits of the United States

• These provisions thus enacted have in substance been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.

• In 1855, however the last provision was somewhat extended to say that all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or should be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States were declared to be citizens also.

Notice that in the first bullet point, the Justices used the word PARENTS when defining Natural-Born Citizens; whereas in the last bullet point, they used the word FATHER and at this point in the case, only called them “CITIZENS.” (It might also be noted that in bullet points 1, 3 and 4 the Justices refer to the “CHILDREN” and in bullet point number 5 they referred to them as “PERSONS”).

How can we understand clear concepts today, when even back in the day our elected and appointed public functionaries could not be relied upon to be clear?

We look for clarity in history.

According to Common Law and the Coverture Doctrine, the meaning of the words PARENTS and FATHER were synonymous back in the day. There was no clarification in the use of the words children or persons, but we can all agree that children are persons, so it is a minor distraction that we will just chalk up to the fallibility of persons (who are people).

What is the Coverture Doctrine, you ask?

The Doctrine of COVERTURE is a “legal doctrine in English common law originating from the French word couverture that means ‘covering,’ - in which a married woman’s legal existence was considered to be merged with that of her husband."

This was “common knowledge” or “accepted nomenclature” in 1788/1789 at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution.

It is important to note that NO ONE at that time or since then, seems to have made THAT DOCTRINE known widely to The People; No Supreme Court Justice, No inferior court Judge, No attorney, No college professor and No teacher seems to have ever mentioned it to us.

Is that because “they” don’t want The People of 2024 to understand The Law any better than the people of France understood the validity of Frederic Bastiat’s warnings back in 1850?

TEAM REPUBLIC CHALLENGES SOMEONE, ANYONE TO PROVE US WRONG!

Article II Section I Clause 5 of the US 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”

In an effort to achieve some clarity, let’s turn to a well-known and respected Constitutional Law Scholar named Joanna Martin (AKA Publius Huldah), where we review the following:

A presentation by Joanna Martin (AKA Publius Huldah) in which she discusses the issue of the Natural Born Citizen and a commentary by Joanna Martin in which she discussed the Doctrine of Coverture.

Joanna Martin’s above-mentioned work included reference to a book written in 1758 called The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel. The Founders of the American Republic read and were influenced by the work of Vattel. Is that common knowledge today? It should be, and Team Republic are dedicated to making it common knowledge.

In Section 212 of The Law of Nations, Mr. Vattel states that 

“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.”

Again, we see that Vattel used the terms PARENTS and FATHER and he also used the term “HIS CHILDREN,” but remember, back in the day, the wife was HIS wife (actually, she still is), the father and mother were ONE entity (actually they still are – even though women do now have their own legal existence) and the children are HIS children (even though modern terminology and sensibilities would rather say “their” children).

Joanna Martin also referenced David Ramsey’s work called A dissertation on the Manner of Acquiring The Character & Privileges of a Citizen of the United States which was printed in 1789 (with a modernized and corrected version completed by Adrien Nash Feb/Aug. 2014 in which he stated that “The dissertation by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found which provides another piece of direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents just as Vattel writes."

Following are court cases that Nash included in his commentary to support the “time-honored definition” of NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens);

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniel concurred but took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively);

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel);

Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;”

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations”, are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States);

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);

Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel);

United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel);

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett);

Nash goes on to say “Then the defining speech that lays out the most important aspect of the requirement and that is allegiance:” and "Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).

******** This is the end of commentary by Adrien Nash

We definitely have persons who are citizens of foreign countries, who hold allegiances to those foreign countries who are in the highest reaches of our governments (potentially at all levels, in all departments).  This is an issue of critical important that We the People of this Magnificent Republic need to address, sooner rather than later, because the health, safety and well-being of our country is at stake.

There is a Pro Se Complaint posted to the US Natural-Born Citizen website. It is unclear whether it was ever filed or adjudicated but certainly, as this case points out, if Kamala Harris and the communist infiltrators surrounding her cannot define what a woman is, they surely aren’t going to be able to differentiate subtle word distinctions or confusing judicial opinions of yesteryear.

Nonetheless, we could use that Pro Se Complaint as a template for future actions and/or additional complaints.

A couple of important considerations need to be reiterated:

• In bygone generations, when a “father” was referenced, it included the marriage team and represented one entity.

• All children are persons (even though all persons are not children).

• No one except a NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN can be President of the United States.

• Kamala Harris is NOT a natural-born citizen.

Guess what. They continue to try to pervert The Law instead of following the Constitution.

See the recent (2018/2024) manipulation of historical legal doctrine included in 8 FAM 301.5 Section 1993, Revised Statutes of 1878 where they state that "As originally enacted, Section 1993 provided for transmission of citizenship only through fathers (without any mention of the Doctrine of Coverture).

It is interesting to note that the “Office of Origin” of this 2018 misinterpretation of The Law (as it relates to citizenship) is called CA/PPT/S/A which, according to an online search refers to the “Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) Passport Services (PPT) Office of Program Management and Operational Support (S) and its Administrative (A) branch.

Is CA/PPT/S/A constitutionally sound?  That is a discussion for a different day, but Team Republic would conjecture that it is not based upon constitutionally granted authority and therefore it does not exist de jure. Look to  Norton v Shelby County TN 118 US 425, 1886, for a discussion on the important concept "de jure."

Also see: HR 1177 (introduced on February 18, 2021) called the “US Citizenship Act” which was “referred” to twelve separate Committees and one Subcommittee on that same day. The next day (February 19, 2021) this House Resolution was “referred” to the Subcommittee on Health and the Subcommittee on Border Security, Facilitation, and Operations. Two months later (on April 28, 2021) it was “referred” to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship where it seems to have withered and died on the vine, thank God.

What was the purpose of HR 1177, you might ask? According to the Title assigned to it by it’s sponsor it was “To provide an earned path to citizenship, to address the root causes of migration and responsibly manage the southern border, and to reform the immigrant visa system, and for other purposes.” There’s always “other purposes” ya know.

Doncha think maybe it’s time We the People start holding these temporarily-seated public functionaries accountable for their suspect allegiances, their usurpation of limited delegated authority granted to them by We the People, the Oaths that they have all sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and their silent compliance in advancing another person who is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN to the Executive Department of our MAGNIFICENT REPUBLIC?

Join us in our journey to educate ourselves on The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God by attending our Wednesday night Zoom meetings from 7 pm to 9 pm EST.

DISCLAIMERS; 

All bolding, italicizing, underlining, CAPITALIZATION, and (parenthetical commentary) are mine.

AND

Congress Shall Make No Law Abridging The Right of Free Speech PERIOD.