With the recent departure of Joe Biden from the presidential election and the coronation of Kamala Harris in his place, it would be wise for us to review what the qualification and eligibility are for the several elected offices found in the US Constitution. My purpose here is to clarify what people think are qualifications and what are not, especially as so many think that their candidate is qualified, and another individual’s is not. The wording of the Constitution is clear and where it may not be perfectly clear, just a bit of reasoning brings what is not perfectly clear into perfect clarity. We will start with the Congressional offices then move onto the executive branch, which includes the president and vice-president.
The Constitution is perfectly clear on both the elected offices within the Legislative branch, the House of Representative (House) and the Senate. The only part that is not clear is the requirements of the individual states, which is clear in the Constitution. What is clear, with regards to the House, is that a person must be at least 25 years old. Additionally, the individual must be a citizen of the US for at least 7 years and must reside in the state that he or she desires to be elected. Note that the requirement is to reside within the state but not necessarily the district. It is possible that the representative could, for example, live in Idaho Congressional district 1 and yet represent district 2. Those are the federal requirements for the House. Thus, a naturalized citizen can run for the House after being a citizen for 7 years and be at least 25 years, as well as live in the state they will represent.
The one qualification that remains is the requirement of being an elector of the state one represents. Every state may have slightly different requirements as decided by their individual legislatures. Some states may have a requirement of a certain number of days, months, or years before one is eligible to vote in their elections for the most numerous branch of the legislature. In the case of Nebraska, which has a unicameral legislature, that is the only branch. They may also require party affiliation in order to vote. It all depends on the state. In Idaho, one must be a citizen, 18 years old, live in the county you will vote in for at least 30 days prior to the vote, be registered to vote. Primary election requirements may also play a role in being qualified to vote. However, we are focusing on the general election. In summary, for the House, you must be a qualified elector in your state, following its rules, be at least 25 years old, 7 years a citizen and reside within the state you will represent.
The Senate has some differences but is quite similar. To be qualified one must be at least 30 years old, a US citizen for at least 9 years and live within the state that you wish to be a senator. What is interesting to note here is that there is no mention of any requirement to be a qualified elector of the state. Thus, for example, if the state requires a wait of 6 months before you are eligible to vote you could not run for the House if you moved to the state 3 months prior to the election but could for Senate. A big however comes into play here. The elector requirement was not in existence prior to the 17th Amendment ratified in 1913. This was the case for 126 years. As the legislature could wisely choose whoever they wanted to represent the State itself as long as the individual was 30 years old, 9 years a citizen and a state resident. Once the Senate shifted to representing the people rather than the State, then a candidate for Senate was required to also be a qualified elector based on the most numerous branch of the state legislature voter requirements.
Before moving on to the office of the president, let me just say that the above are the only requirements of the Constitution. One may agree or disagree with a policy of a candidate or elected official but that does not nullify the Constitutional requirements laid out in Article I, Sections 2 and 3. But that does not mean that one may not be disqualified by reason of treason, ineligibility because of criminal convictions or removal from office by the House or Senate who may disqualify them from ever running for office again. In the case of criminal convictions, most states prohibit felons from voting, which falls within the eligibility requirements of the state. But to say that someone is not qualified, regardless of intelligence level (that would disqualify nearly all 535 members of Congress!), level of honesty, having private or only public business experience, never having international or no domestic experience in public office or private business in NOT a qualification of the Constitution. These are “nice-to-have” experiences that may be beneficial to the office but are again, not qualifications.
Now I move on to the Executive branch, which includes the president and vice-president. Eligibility of the president is similar to the House and Senate, with some stark differences. Only natural born citizens, that is, a person who is born in the United States of parents who are citizens and living in the United States legally, may become a president, or if both parents are citizens but living abroad. Whatever the case, if one is foreign born and is required to be naturalized, he cannot run for president. The other qualifications found in Article II, Section 1 are that the person must be at least 35 years old and have lived within the US for at least 14 years prior to the election. Thus, if one is a natural born citizen but has been living abroad until, say, 10 years before running for president, they are ineligible.
Here I will explain what a natural born citizen is. This will also include what people mistakenly understand about the 14th Amendment, particularly the myth of anchor-babies. A natural born citizen is one born in the United States but also of US citizens. For simple understanding of “natural,” I will use an analogy. Two horses when they reproduce will bare a horse. No matter how hard they try, they cannot ever produce a donkey. Similarly, two donkeys can never produce a horse. That would be unnatural. Thus, two non-citizens, in like manner, can never produce a citizen. That is not natural. Thus, non-citizens must be “naturalized” to become a citizen. In the case of crossing a horse and a donkey, they can reproduce a mule or hinny depending on the match-up of the male and female, which will have characteristics of both but will not be one or the other. Similarly, a citizen and non-citizen cannot produce a natural-born citizen, as the citizen may have dual-citizenship, characteristics of both parents. Also, note that it is NOT natural for a horse and donkey to mate. It is done unnaturally. Again, this is just an analogy to help us understand what a natural-born citizen is.
Another way to look at it is found within the 14th Amendment itself. First, we must recognize that this was done after the conclusion of the Civil War and was intended for recognition of former slaves who were not considered citizens at that time. The 13th Amendment ended slavery and the 14th fixed the citizen issue for slaves. That is it. Setting that aside and assuming it applies to anybody born here, we must look at two things, the wording and the intent of the writers and debates of the amendment. The wording itself is clear. “All persons born or naturalized in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US and of the state wherein they reside.” Georgia slaves were citizens of the US and Georgia, S.C. of S.C., etc.
What about a case like Kamala, whose parents were residents of California when she was born but who were not US citizens? Donald Harris, her father became a citizen at some point before 2015. Interesting side note is that her father is descended from a plantation and slave owner of over 1100 slaves and born in Brown’s Town, Jamaica, which was named after his slave ancestor, Hamilton Brown. Her mother, Shyamala, as far as any ICE documents show, never became a citizen as was born in India.
Neither parent was subject to the jurisdiction of the US, except for the simple fact that they lived within the jurisdiction of the US. The same can be said of every person living within the US, whether legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, diplomats, etc. Yet, especially in the case of diplomats, any child born in the US is not a citizen. Why? The country of their citizenship is who has jurisdiction over them. Thus, diplomatic children born in the US are citizens of their respective country, not US citizens. Why should the average citizen be any different? They are not. The arguments made in the Senate concerning the 14th Amendment are demonstrative of this.
First, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, who introduced the amendment adding the citizenship clause to the amendment, argued that the statement above was the case. The clause reads, “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.” The main argument surrounding who are citizens was addressed when he stated,
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.[i]
Furthermore, Senator Lyman Trumbull clarified the idea of jurisdiction.
The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” What do we mean by “complete jurisdiction thereof?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. [ii]
Both legal and illegal aliens owe allegiance to another jurisdiction, their home country. Therefore, they do not fall under this clause. Howard agreed with this. [iii]
In order to clarify this more, House member John Bingham of Ohio, from the same as Howard, stated,
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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.[iv]
The intent of those that wrote and debated the citizenship clause of this amendment made it perfectly clear what they intended, which was that only a citizen can give birth to a citizen. Children born to any person other than a citizen, regardless of whether the parent was legally or illegally in the country are not citizens. There is no such thing as an “anchor baby.”
To apply all this to Kamala Harris, it is clear, not only in the words of the 14th Amendment but also in the intent and debates made in Congress that Kamala is ineligible, not only to run as president but by default to have ever run as vice-president, as that office necessarily has the same qualifications as president. Moreover, taking the proofs that I have provided further, Kamala, not being a citizens, despite where she was born, has never been naturalized, because of the “anchor-baby” myth used to subvert the plain reading of the Constitution and its amendments but to create and cause havoc within our borders. Thus, every political office she has ever held has been done under the guise of citizenship but, in reality, she has held office as a foreigner.
This subversion of the Constitution, simply acting as an alien, regardless of her policies, demonstrates her ignorance of the Constitution and her policies and actions taken as an unconstitutional officer are simply the fruits of her corruption.
While there are subtle differences between qualifications and eligibility, such as the eligibility requirement of residing in the state or the US, qualifications and eligibility are limited to the Constitution. All other so-called qualifications are simply for helping determine who will be the better candidate for the qualified individual. And, regardless of all other superior skills or traits of another individual, qualifications determine whether they can run or not. Kamala is ineligible in every conceivable way, including her skills or rather the lack thereof. However, despite all this, there is no doubt where Democrats stand. Ineligible aliens, unskilled, corrupt individuals willing to subvert and destroy the Constitution and its principles are the highest qualified to lead their party and our country, according to Democrats. We must return to the principles of the Constitution and to understanding them. Simply looking at policies, nice-to-have qualifications or skills are not enough. Adherence to Constitutional principles are what is required.
[i] “Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session,” Library of Congress, accessed June 11, 2015, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage.
[ii] Ibid. 2893
[iii] Ibid. 2895
[iv] Ibid. 1291
