★★ EXTRA EXTRA ★★
Special Unite I.E. Conservative Conference EditionKAMALA HARRIS INELIGIBLE FOR OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT!
LAWSUIT FILED!!!!
Kamala Harris Legal Team Refuses to Respond, Federal Courts Fail to Issue Default Judgment
After an exhaustive search for counsel, assistance, and legal allies, the complaint was eventually filed on December 7, 2020 in the Federal Southern District Court located in San Diego, California. After twenty days, and later sixty days, passed without a response from the Kamala Harris camp the court recognized a default had been committed, but rejected issuing a default judgment despite a request for a default judgment being filed by the Constitution Association. A response to the lawsuit did appear from the United States Attorney’s office, but not on behalf of Kamala Harris. The U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a response as representation for the United States Government, who has no standing in the case according to the Constitution Association team.
In their response the government’s lawyers called for dismissal of the case arguing that the Constitution Association and the 18 additional plaintiffs did not have standing, that the complaint was guilty of “political question”, and that the courts did not have jurisdiction due to the government’s argument that the authority to determine the eligibility of a presidential or vice presidential candidate constitutionally belonged to Congress.
The original complaint filed by the Constitution Association argued that Kamala Harris is not eligible because she is not a natural born citizen. The natural born citizen requirement for President of the United States is provided in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The final sentence of Amendment Twelve states that the Vice President of the United States must meet the same eligibility requirements as the President.
While no definition for natural born citizen is provided in the text of the founding document the Constitution Association explained in their original filing that the definition was commonly understood as well as provided for in Vattel’s Law of Nations (a 1758 French Language Legal Resource translated into English in 1760, two copies in English and one copy in French were present on the floor of the Constitutional Convention of 1787), the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790, and five cases of dicta by Chief Justices of the United States Supreme Court who used the proper definition of natural born citizen in their judicial opinion of the cases they had heard, with the most recent one being 1875’s Minor v. Happersett. The definition of natural born citizen requires both parents of a person to be citizens at the time of their birth. Neither of the parents of Kamala Harris were citizens of the United States at the time of her birth. Her father was from Jamaica, her mother was from India. They were visitors in the country on student visas who had not filed any immigration paperwork showing any intent to seek permanent residency in the United States.
As Christmas 2021 approached, and candidate Kamala Harris had become Vice President of the United States, the Federal District Court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds of jurisdiction because the constitutional authority for determining eligibility belongs to Congress and such a lawsuit violates the principle of separation of powers since it would pit the courts against the Legislative Branch over a power constitutionally granted to the legislature.
In January of 2022 the Constitution Association and its officers filed an appeal against the dismissal with the 9th Circuit federal court arguing that the dismissal was in error since according to the Enumeration Doctrine and the Tenth Amendment the Congress did not have the authority to determine eligibility.
The Enumeration Doctrine follows an original intent by the Founding Fathers that states any power utilized by the federal government, or any of its parts, must be expressly listed in the Constitution as an authority. If a power is not granted to the federal government, unless it is necessary and proper in order to carry out an expressly enumerated power, and if the power is not prohibited to the States, as per the Tenth Amendment the authority is reserved to the States, or to the people. While in Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution the authority to be judge of the qualifications of its own members belongs to each House of Congress, there is no enumeration in the Constitution regarding who has the power to determine the eligibility of the President or Vice President of the United States. Therefore, despite the argument by the U.S. Attorney in the Constitution Association, Inc., et al v. Kamala Harris case that the authority belongs to Congress, constitutional examination reveals that the U.S. Government’s argument is an erroneous one.
After the appeal was filed the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed an extension, and then just before the added time allotted expired, filed a response to the appeal that essentially reiterated the claim that the case lacked jurisdiction as provided by the Federal District Court judge. As of the printing of this article the Constitution Association team has written its reply and will be filing the response within the week.
While the case has been labeled by opponents as being “just another birther case,” the importance of the lawsuit to correct the chain of illegal candidacies we have been seeing in recent history resides in the Founding Father’s desire that the leaders of the United States need to be without divided loyalties. Full allegiance was a concern of the Founding Fathers who, during and after the American Revolution, had to deal with Tories, who were locally born members of their communities in the United States, but still held loyalties for the British Empire. Tories tended to be the children of at least one parent who was born in England, and considered themselves to be British Subjects, rather than American Citizens.
“One may also take into consideration,” argues Douglas Gibbs, president of the Constitution Association, “that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was also written to guard against divided loyalties. According to one of the authors of the clause in his testimony before Congress on May 30, 1866, the intent of the language in the Citizenship Clause demanding that the person must also be ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’, specifically was designed to ensure that full allegiance accompanied one’s birth or naturalization as a citizen. Senator Howard, in his testimony, states, ‘exempt from citizenship are Indians not taxed, and the children of foreigners, aliens, diplomats and ambassadors, and other foreign consuls and ministers.’ In short, I not only wish for Kamala Harris to be removed from the Office of Vice President of the United States, but I believe she should be deported to Jamaica.”
Dennis Jackson, the catalyst of the Constitution Association team, has continually called attention to the fact that a default by Kamala Harris has been committed. In any other case in which you or I would be party, he has argued, not responding to a case means you lose. Why is the default committed by Kamala Harris not being fully recognized for what it is by the courts?
Constitution Association Treasurer George Rombach, the sole member of the team with a law degree, and the chief architect of the construction and delivery of the briefs being provided to the courts, has explained that the narrow aim of getting the courts to define natural born citizen is really the key.
The team also reminds those who are observing from the outside that this is not a partisan argument. In the original complaint the fact that Democrat Barack Obama, and Republicans Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, and Marco Rubio are also ineligible is noted.
When asked what is expected from the lawsuit, the response by the Constitution Association team is for the provisions of the Constitution to be followed, beginning with ensuring that only those who are supposed to be holding office does. If the Constitution Association wins their appeal, the expectation is that the case would return to the Federal District Court for a hearing. If the Constitution Association loses the appeal, the case will then likely be appealed upward to the United States Supreme Court.
As Douglas V. Gibbs has stated, “While I am not sure if we will succeed in the courts, I am hoping that the ultimate court takes notice, that being the court of public opinion.”
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
© Douglas V. Gibbs, 2022. Constitution Association, Inc., 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, www.constitutionassociation.com
No comments:
Post a Comment