Is Kamala Harris Black Enough?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

You are misinterpreting what it means to be "subject to the juridiction thereof".

"The language of Article II is that one must be a natural-born citizen. The original Constitution did not define citizenship, but the 14th Amendment does—and it provides that "all persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. The person must also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and that meant 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). Such was the view of those who authored the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause; of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1872 Slaughter-House Cases and the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins; of Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional treatise writer of the day; and of the State Department, which, in the 1880s, issued directives to U.S. embassies to that effect."

https://www.newsweek.com/some-questi...pinion-1524483

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...im_Ark#Dissent


this is a much later case than the 1872 case. it took place in 1898 and was a 6-2 decision.


it cites a number of other immigration cases.



you'd lose if you tried to bring that argument to the court. the court back then disagreed those cases were relevant to wong or in this kamala.



The question of the citizenship status of U.S.-born children of alien parents had, up to this time, never been decided by the Supreme Court.[77][99] The U.S. government argued that Wong's claim to U.S. citizenship was ruled out by the Supreme Court's interpretation of jurisdiction in its 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases ruling,[75] but the district judge concluded that the language in question was obiter dictum and not directly relevant to the case at hand.[77][100] The government also cited a similar statement in Elk v. Wilkins, but the judge was not convinced by this argument either.[101][102]

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...im_Ark#Dissent


this is a much later case than the 1872 case. it took place in 1898 and was a 6-2 decision.


it cites a number of other immigration cases.



you'd lose if you tried to bring that argument to the court. the court back then disagreed those cases were relevant to wong or in this kamala.



The question of the citizenship status of U.S.-born children of alien parents had, up to this time, never been decided by the Supreme Court.[77][99] The U.S. government argued that Wong's claim to U.S. citizenship was ruled out by the Supreme Court's interpretation of jurisdiction in its 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases ruling,[75] but the district judge concluded that the language in question was obiter dictum and not directly relevant to the case at hand.[77][100] The government also cited a similar statement in Elk v. Wilkins, but the judge was not convinced by this argument either.[101][102]

The SCOTUS can reconsider though they likely won’t.

If Biden wins fair and square nothing can be done anyway.

Harris will be POTUS.

[oeb11]

i believe FF is correct.
The Marxist DPST's will immediately pack the SC with radicals if they win POTUS and Senate - and destroy the Constitution and Rule of law.

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by oeb11

i believe FF is correct.
The Marxist DPST's will immediately pack the SC with radicals if they win POTUS and Senate - and destroy the Constitution and Rule of law.

Yes they will - fucking bastards.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's a pretty strong conclusion ....

... the only whores have either been arrested or are on Eccie?

Eccie is just one example of a P4P board. Other examples are P411, EROS, ourhome.net, listcrawler (most of the girls on this one are ugly though - LOL) etc,etc, etc.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

fly a fighter jet. can u?


they were all draft dodgers.

so .. what's your point??


BAHHHAAAAAAAAAA

You don't have to be smart to learn how to fly a fighter jet. Bush43 only had a 2.7 GPA with a History major at Yale. He joined the national guard so he would not be shot at in Vietnam.

Going to college instead of being drafted was perfectly legal. An example of a draft dodger would be someone who moved to Canada after completing high school, or getting a fake medical deferment like Trump did.

My point is the eccie reputards on here call Harris sleazy for dating Willie Brown to get ahead. They give Trump a pass when he had his PSE (Porn Star Experience) meeting with an actual porn star (Stormy Daniels) while Melania was carrying the Baron.

[matchingmole]

Originally Posted by oeb11

i believe FF is correct.
The Marxist DPST's will immediately pack the SC with radicals if they win POTUS and Senate - and destroy the Constitution and Rule of law.

Cool

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

You don't have to be smart to learn how to fly a fighter jet. Bush43 only had a 2.7 GPA with a History major at Yale. He joined the national guard so he would not be shot at in Vietnam.

Going to college instead of being drafted was perfectly legal. An example of a draft dodger would be someone who moved to Canada after completing high school, or getting a fake medical deferment like Trump did.

My point is the eccie reputards on here call Harris sleazy for dating Willie Brown to get ahead. They give Trump a pass when he had his PSE (Porn Star Experience) meeting with an actual porn star (Stormy Daniels) while Melania was carrying the Baron.

Trump fucking porn sluts didn't help his career any, unlike CAMELa Harris when she sucked Willie's dick to advance her then non-existent political career.

CAMELa is a sleazy slut. she will contribute to Biden getting his ass kicked by Trump/Pence.


she was not a good pick for Biden. as a presidential candidate she was "candidate let's discuss this". can't make a stand on anything.


Why Kamala Harris’s Campaign Failed

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...mpaign-failed/


What happened to Harris? I wrote an article in early October, after she had gradually dropped to mid single digits in most polls, trying to explain her decline. The most plausible theories, in my view, were:

1. Democratic voters were not looking for an Obama-style candidate running more on charisma and personality than on policy.
2. Biden, Sanders and Warren were just strong rivals. In particular, Biden’s strength among black voters and Warren’s support among college-educated whites boxed Harris out among two groups she really needed.
3. Harris herself had not been an ideal candidate. At times, she struggled to explain her policy stances and her reasons for running for president.
4. And finally, Harris, as a woman of color (she is the daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants), faced extra high hurdles with a Democratic Party that’s focused on each candidate’s perceived ability to defeat President Trump. Many voters view nominating a woman as a risky bet in a general election.

Why Kamala Harris failed

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-harris-failed


Kamala Harris has ended her presidential campaign. Thus fades into history one of the most overhyped candidates in recent memory.


It's not hard to see why Harris failed.


She was half the aggressive prosecutor and half the noble social justice warrior, half practical Democrat and half proud progressive, and it was never clear where she stood. With Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders consolidating the Democratic Party's progressive wing, and Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg fighting over the center ground, Harris's uncertain political identity denied her a foundation to build on. Instead, the California senator appeared to copy policies that she assumed would be popular in any one moment: most ignominiously, her call to ban President Trump's Twitter account.


For a Democratic Party craving authenticity, as well as a candidate who can beat Trump, Harris's strategic ingredients were a poor match for success. The basic point is this: As my colleague Tiana Lowe noted back in the summer, Harris simply wasn't ready for prime time. She was too desperate to win and lacked established values.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Trump fucking porn sluts didn't help his career any, unlike CAMELa Harris when she sucked Willie's dick to advance her then non-existent political career.

[/I][/B]

Having a hookup with Stormy Daniels did not hep his career, but it was SLEAZY!!!!!

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Having a hookup with Stormy Daniels did not hep his career, but it was SLEAZY!!!!!

how did that work out for Stormy Tits? remember when she and that idiot lawyer were going to bring down Trump? didn't happen. Stormy Tits violated her NDA to get her pocket change from Trump. this wasn't a campaign violation no matter what Cohen says in his new book.


was it sleazy when Slick Willie Blythe got that bj in the oval office?

[rexdutchman]

Read (if you can ) Profiles in corruption she's right outa the progressive playbook

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Eccie is just one example of a P4P board. Other examples are P411, EROS, ourhome.net, listcrawler (most of the girls on this one are ugly though - LOL) etc,etc, etc.

Is Harris advertised on one of the others?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Having a hookup with Stormy Daniels did not hep his career, but it was SLEAZY!!!!!

How was your appointment with "Stormy Daniels"? Review?



Or is the "biker chick" more your style?

Wonder how KUMOLA enjoys limpy seconds?