No announcement yet.

Constitition Association v Kamala Devi Harris

  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AyatollahGondola
    I'm all for tryin'

    Leave a comment:

  • bubalubob
    Doesn't hurt to try.

    There's a saying that Republicans write angry letters to the editor while Democrats go to rallies and get loud. I'm sure you see at least a grain of thought in that quote.

    They also file lawsuits like they're carpet bombing their opposition and there's no amount of lies, slander, spin, smears and gas lighting which would be ever considered excessive. If it weren't for dirty tricks they wouldn't have any tricks at all.

    However there seems to be a growing revolt against the excesses of the far left in power and people aren't being so quiet anymore. Witness the growing backlash to critical race theory being taught in school. I believe there is a lot of growing unity starting to manifest itself, something we didn't have before.

    I see plenty of reasons why, even if the suit did pass through a positive Supreme Court ruling, it wouldn't fly.

    We are dealing with people who think they can bypass the clear, unmistakable language of the Constitution by passing legislation to circumvent it instead of calling a Constitutional convention to amend, presidents who refuse to faithfully execute the law as Constitutionally required and to which they solemnly swear to do, and judges who confuse their costitutionally mandated duty to apply the law with interpreting the law - ever since Marbury v Madison about 1803 or so.

    The assault on the Constitution began before the ink was dry.

    Some of the problems happen to be reliance on case law and precedence rather than the clear language of the Constitution. Law students are taught interpretaions of the Constitution instead of the Constitution itself. University professors pervert it to say anything they want it to.

    The concept of natural born citizen was well known and legal reference to it was at the time of the framing of the Constitution.

    It's time to fight back and merely saying "hey" after you get kicked in the nuts doesn't cut it anymore.

    Part of the aim of the suit is to get it into the court of public opinion, whether it flies or not.

    Leave a comment:

  • AyatollahGondola
    Sounds a bit far fetched. I mean, a supreme court justice swore them in. I have seen government lawyers and judges disregard that which is plainly stated, in favor of some legal gobbledygook they vomit up. Just think how it will be for a concept that needs to be proven through a rather tortured pathway. I'm unsure if a sitting vice president can be sued civilly. They tried it with Trump, and that failed

    Leave a comment:

  • bubalubob
    started a topic Constitition Association v Kamala Devi Harris

    Constitition Association v Kamala Devi Harris

    This is a lawsuit against Kamala Harris which declares Harris is Constitutionally inelegible for the office of President.

    This differs from the actions against Obama in that the argument against Obama revolved around place of birth whereas this one is that Harris is not a natural born citizen as required by constitution. The arguments for birth right citizenship have to do with place of birth, whereas the Constitutional requirement is that the President be a natural born citizen - which is someone who's parents were both citizens. Harris' parents were students on visa when Harris was born and never became citizens.

    Inelegible people would include Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz as well as Barak Obama and Kamala Harris. Someone who was born in, for example, in Germany to US citizens would be elible if the other article II section 1 eligibility requirements were satified - Natural born citizen, 35 years old and a 14 year resident of the United States.

    At this time this is my best understanding of the case:

    The civil lawsuit was accepted in Southern District Court of California, and Harris failed to respond, which usually means default. After the default time was up, a US Attorney inserted himself into the suit. Their argument appears to be that the US government wasn't named in the suit, that Congress determines eligibilty and that Harris is a citizen under the 14th amendment and therefore eligible.

    The counter argument was to this effect: Harris was sued as a citizen, not as a government official - the government has no standing. Harris' parents were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (not citizens) but to Jamaica and India and Harris is not a natural born citizen. There was a lot of citing of case law, more than several Supreme Court opinions, and of testimony and congressional discussion of the original authors of the 14th amendment as to the intent of the 14th amendment concerning citizenship. I don't know the legal terms, but the plintiffs requested that the judge boot the government out of the suit.

    The US attorney responded by repeating his previous arguments in caps, as if he were shouting.

    The plaintiff's response was that the government had no standing and should be removed from the case. That is where is is at at this date and time.

    The plaintiffs seem that they would rather go to trial than accept a default so the solid arguments get out and understood rather than being buried in a default.

    Here is the website of Douglas V. Gibbs There is a button on the right which links to a single page PDF of the filed complaint.

    Obama, Kamala Harris, Birthright Citizenship and Natural Born Citizen https://politicalpistachio.blogspot....irthright.html

    Lawsuits from Kamala to Keystone https://politicalpistachio.blogspot....-keystone.html

    Constitution Radio: Kamala's Eligibility https://politicalpistachio.blogspot....igibility.html

    Who Determines Presidential Eligibility? https://politicalpistachio.blogspot....igibility.html

    Beaumont Constitution Class: Natural Born Citizen https://politicalpistachio.blogspot....s-natural.html