A court hearing is set for August 29 in my lawsuit challenging the "natural born Citizen" status of Vice President Kamala Harris

Let the Ad Hominems begin . . .

Aug 26, 2024

Before you begin with the Ad Hominem attacks against me, why not first try reading the Complaint I filed in N.Y. Supreme Court? In Sibley v. Kristen Zebrowski Stavisky, solely in her official capacity as Co-Executive Director of the New York Board of Elections and New York’s Chief Election Official, you will find the following factual allegations, applicable law and legal arguments:

The supreme law of the land found at Article II, §1, of the U.S. Constitution states in pertinent part: No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President;
Kamala Iyer Harris was born on Oct. 20, 1964, in Oakland, California and as such is a Citizen of the United States. According to publish reports however, neither Kamala Iyer Harris’ mother, Gopalan Shyamala, nor her father, Donald Jasper Harris were Citizens of the United States at the time of Kamala Iyer Harris’ birth. At the time of Kamala Iyer Harris’ birth both her parents were in the United States on temporary student visas, with the express condition that both were “non-immigrant students”;
The phrase “natural born Citizen” is an 18th Century legal term-of-art with a definite meaning well known to the Framers of the Constitution. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the phrase “natural born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (The Law of Nations, Emerich de Vattel, 1758, Chapter 19, §212);
Accordingly, upon the law and facts, Kamala Iyer Harris is not a “natural born Citizen” and thus is ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States as her parents were not U.S. Citizens at her birth.

Now I will be the first to admit that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has never been conclusively defined by the U.S. Supreme Court or any federal circuit court. I do believe that Emerich de Vattel’s 1758 definition is correct and well-supported by other 18th Century legal authorities. Moreover, the Framers’ rationale for prohibiting first generation U.S. citizens from becoming President is obvious and born of common sense:

First generation U.S. Citizens are reasonably suspect of having conflicting loyalties between: (i) their prior foreign home nation and its cultural/religious values and (ii) their U.S. Citizenship’s rights/obligations and the cultural/religious values of the United States. Second generation U.S. Citizens are far less likely to have an allegiance to a foreign nation and its cultural/religious values. The distinctive cultural/religious values upon which the United States was formed has created the nearest thing this planet has seen to a Utopia. (. . . and yes there is still a long way to go.) A “natural born Citizen” - that is at least a second generation U.S. Citizen - requirement for the Commander-in-Chief of the Unites States Armed Forces is simply common sense.

In the next breath, I will acknowledge that counter-arguments exist. See, e.g.: On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen by Paul Clement and Neal Katyal, 128 Harv. L. Rev. F. 161, March 2015.1 That is why I have filed this suit; to try and get a determination from SCOTUS, the court-of-last-resort, on what “natural born Citizen” means.

On August 12, 2024, the Summons, Complaint and Motion to Expedite were served on the Defendant, New York’s Chief Election Official. On August 14, 2024, I paid the $140 that New York requires to get a judge to look at my motion and hold a hearing. Supreme Court Judge Baker on August 20, 2024, without giving me notice or an opportunity to be heard, entered his Order sua sponte dismissing the Complaint. The next day, August 21, 2024, I responded with my Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal. Two hours later, Supreme Court Judge Baker ‒ realizing his grotesque violation of due process ‒ through his law clerk contacted me and directed me to file a Notice of Hearing for Thursday, August 29, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Watkins Glen, New York.

I will update this blog as Sibley v. Stavisky moves through the court system. Please subscribe if you would like those updates.

Last, I need help covering the court fees and printing costs associated with this expedited litigation run. To help in that regard I have set up a GoFundMe campaign to raises no more than the $2,800 I expect will be needed to march this issue to the United States Supreme Court. If you can support my effort in any amount, I would greatly appreciate it.

For those who think I am only filing suit because Kamala Iyer Harris is a Democrat, please note that I raised the same challenge in 2015 in my submitted-to-Harvard-but-not-published note: “Response to the Note of Paul Clement and Neal Katyal: “On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen”. In that “Response” I raised the same “natural born Citizen” concern in regards to then-declared Republican Presidential candidates Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and the then soon-to-be declared Presidential candidate Governor Bobby Jindal.

Discussion about this post

Ted

Sep 3

One would agree with your view that Harris is not a Natural Born Citizen however you’re missing two major items, one The Naturalization Act of 1790 & Congressional Resolution 511, the former explicitly states that the children of US citizens shall be considered Natural Born Citizens, while this act was repealed five years later likely because the founders wanted the length of time to be longer for one to qualify to become a citizen it nonetheless provides insight into the thinking of the founders as to what the term meant.

Secondly, is Congressional Resolution 511, in 2008 when concerns about John McCain's eligibility rose to prominence Congress move forward with Resolution 511 declaring that John McCain was a natural born citizen, the basis for this declaration was that McCain‘s parents were American citizens. That resolution was accompanied with legal opinions from two constitutional scholars in support of Resolution 511, one was a former US solicitor general the second was a law professor, those legal opinions were entered into the congressional record.

The courts have repeatedly affirmed that Congress is the prevailing authority for declaring what citizenship is and with Resolution 511 Congress declared natural born citizens are the children of US citizens. One can’t have it both ways, either the citizenship of one’s parents is material or it’s not, Congress seems to be of belief that it is material so much so that they took the time and effort to compose a formal congressional resolution. Natural Born Citizenship isn’t a sliding scale, it’s to be applied universally.

Many mistakenly insist the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the 14th amendment only applies to the children of diplomats this is completely incorrect. When the 14th amendment was passed, Native Americans were excluded from the 14th amendment because they’re subject to tribal jurisdiction. The vast majority of Native Americans are not diplomats so Native Americans who they and their parents were born on US soil were excluded from citizenship because they were subject to another jurisdiction.

There’s also the question of whether Kamala Harris should’ve been conferred US citizenship in the first place. If Harris was conferred the citizenship of her parents automatically at birth that would seemingly put her at odds with a plain text of both The Civil Rights Act of 1866 & The 14th Amendment. The former explicitly states that those who are subject to a foreign power are not eligible for US citizenship. if Harris automatically acquired Jamaican or Indian citizenship through her parents at birth, she would not be eligible for she would be subject to Jamaica’s and India’s jurisdiction, that’s indisputable because the US government has rules for dual citizens that explicitly states that dual citizens are required to owe allegiance to and are subject to the jurisdiction to all countries to which they hold citizenship. Not only would It put her at odds with a plain text of The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment it would also put her at odds with the founder's intent for the presidency. It is without question the founders would not have permitted an individual who is required to owe allegiance to and is subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country to be President, in fact that seems to be the very thing the founders were most concerned about in the presidency if one reads John Jay's letter to George Washington.

Natural Born Citizenship is about allegiance to the United States, the founders wanted natural born citizens to have 100% complete allegiance to the United States, that can only be achieved when both parents are US citizens. The founders knew that such citizens would take time to produce that's why they inserted the language or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President The big question that needs to be addressed is whether Harris holds or has ever held foreign citizenship, curiously no one in the media has bothered to ask her this question.

One wishes you well in your legal endeavor, such a judgement by the high court would have monumental constitutional implications. SCOTUS might loathe to rule on this because if they rule her not to be a Natural Born Citizen it would evoke a constitutional crisis.

How would Congress even deal with the aftermath? All the tie breaking votes she cast would become void. It would truly be uncharted territory, best of luck!

Expand full comment

4 replies by Montgomery Blair Sibley and others