i PLACED AN ARTICLE ON KAMALA HARRIS NOT BEING QUALIFIED AS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, NEITHER ONE OF HERE PARENTS WERE CITIZENS WHEN SHE WAS BORN, THIS IS INFORMATION BACKED UP IN THE ARTICLE BY ONE OF THE FOREMOST CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS IN THE COUNTRY AND YOUR SO-CALLED FACT CHECKERS SAY IT IS FALSE, WHO THE *** ARE THEY, FOR SURE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS!DON'T USE FACEBOOK, THEY ARE BLOCKING YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
John Eastman is one of the most distinguished constitutional law experts in America. He is a professor of law at Chapman University and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. The phrase subject to the jurisdiction means, he writes, subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States (whether lawfully or unlawfully).
Thus, the fact that her parents were sojourning here legally is not decisive. The issue is not location, it is citizenship.
While most Americans, untrained in the Constitution, believe that anyone born on U.S soil is automatically a citizen, this is actually a new idea, unheard of until the late 1960s. As Eastman points out, the Supreme Court has never held that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen. Birthright citizenship only belongs to those whose parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States the moment they were born.
Kamala Harris parents did not as they were not citizens of the U.S. nor were they even Legal Permanent residents, here parents owed allegiance to Jamaica and India, not the United States.
User's recommendation: STOP BLOCKING CONSTITUTIONAL FACTS - YOU ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS, AND MOST LIKELY YOUR FACT CHECKERS ARE NOT EITHER.
Preferred solution: Apology.
Facebook Cons: Censoring of factual constitutional data.