Chapman University law professor John Eastman, whose column questioning Sen. Kamala Harris‘ eligibility to serve as vice president set off a firestorm of debate and earned him a nod from President Donald Trump, brushed aside criticism of his opinions Friday as “nonsense.”
“It’s been quite an interesting couple of days,” Eastman told City News Service.
Critics have lambasted Eastman for his Newsweek column this week about Harris, saying it has fueled a new “birther” movement — resurrecting the conspiracy theory originally contending that Barack Obama was born in Kenya instead of Hawaii, and thus ineligible to be president.
That movement was led primarily by then-private citizen Donald Trump.
Although Eastman’s column raised eyebrows when it was published Wednesday, it erupted into a national debate when Trump discussed it at the White House the next day and praised Eastman as “a very highly qualified, very talented lawyer.” Trump didn’t dismiss the contention that Harris — who was born in Oakland — may not be eligible to serve as vice president, saying, “I heard it today that she doesn’t meet the requirements,” later adding, “I have no idea if that’s right.”
Harris was chosen this week as presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s running mate.
Eastman told CNS Friday he thinks it’s ironic he has received so much criticism “for publishing a scholarly article on a subject I’ve been writing about for 20 years.”
“Email and Twitter trolls are quite something,” Eastman said. “I hope our politics can walk back from the precipice where Twitter troll analysis of an issue seems to become the dialogue these days.”
Eastman argued that constitutional law is not yet settled on the question of whether being born in the United States automatically makes one a citizen. Many other scholars disagree and have established that as the standard, but Eastman said the authors of the law had two requirements:
— one, that the person must be born on American soil;
— and two, that the person be subject exclusively to U.S. law. To be president, one must be a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Harris was born in Oakland in 1964, but Eastman questions whether her Jamaican father and Indian mother were in the country on what would be considered a green card.
“It’s quite possible they applied for and got green card status,” Eastman said. “But, also going to school at the time, it’s much more likely they were here on student visas.”
If they were here on student visas, that wouldn’t be enough to make Harris eligible to be president, but it would not preclude her from being a senator, Eastman argued.
“Maybe at the end of the day, the Supreme Court will say it doesn’t matter” regarding the parents’ status, he said. “They may say birth is all we need, but they’ve never done that yet. And it remains an open question.”
Eastman denied allegations that he was stooping to “birtherism,” or that his opinion is based in racism or sexism.
“To say I only did this because she is Black and a woman is nonsense,” Eastman said.
He also brushed aside criticism that his column was a case of sour grapes, since he ran unsuccessfully for state attorney general in 2010 — a position that Harris ended up winning. Eastman said he ran second in the Republican primary, losing to former Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley.
“So I never ran against Kamala Harris,” Eastman said.
“If I have sour grapes against anyone, it would be Steve Cooley,” he added with a laugh.
Eastman recalled participating in a debate with the Democratic candidates because he was the only Republican who agreed to.
“I walked out of there saying she was the best of the Democratic candidates they had,” Eastman said. “If that demonstrates I’m holding a grudge, then people are not looking very carefully.”
Eastman acknowledged that he believes Harris’ stance “on legal issues is terrible,” and he is critical of her time as attorney general.
The uproar prompted by the column hasn’t hurt Eastman’s standing at Chapman University.
“Chapman University respects the academic freedom of all its faculty,” Jamie S. Ceman, Chapman’s vice president of strategic marketing and communications, said. “The opinions expressed by faculty are their own and we will never restrict their right to express it, however, they do not represent the opinions of the institution.”
–
Brian Dumas says
OK, first off why was the pejorative term “birtherism” even brought up and used here, immigration and citizenship and whose who and whats what is a extremely complex and very unsettled matter .
There are for example nations which allow dual citizenship , but others don’t , if its one of those others therefore
if you’re from there and you become a naturalized American citizen you automatically give up your native countries
citizenship , others don’t follow this rule but of course theres always procedures and paperwork , if you blow it off
then your status is questionable .
The 14th amendment isn’t likely as free and clear as it states . Its a matter of still ongoing debate . It’d be interesting to see Kamala Harris birth certificate actually because any document can be faked , forged or counterfeited , its just a matter of how good the fake, forgery and counterfeiting is . Just as with counterfeit money, theres good ones almost indistinguisable from the real mccoy and obvious fakes.
If Kamala Harris was released and forsenically examined then there’d be no issue .
whenever theres a “discrepancy” then its perfectly legitimate to ask questions and expect a answer .
The big truth is we live in a world where its not black and white, but shades of gray. my advise . “TRUST NO ONE” , ALWAYS EXAMINE THINGS SCIENTFICALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY .
Alexis says
Kamala Harris was vetted and qualifies. Next is motive.
Alexis says
After the issue has been settled about Kamala Harris being qualified to run as Vice President, the the issue is motive.
Loam says
It’s not “birtherism”, as all concern agree that she was born in Oakland.
It’s not racism, as we asked the same type questions about John McCain and Mitt Romney. The author of the original article raises some legal points for discussion; that’s all. It’s a discussion; are we not allowed to discuss in the US?
Trump did not “discussed it” out of the blue; he was asked by a reporter during a briefing. At least the author of this article was truthful to put in that Trump said “I have no idea if that’s right.”
Lastly, Congress could have addressed the citizenship question of legal residents, legal visitors, and undocumented immigrants long ago but it refuses to. Since the 14th amendment, there has been debate and legal cases. Some details have been decided (legal residents, yes) but not other questions (student visas, tourist visas, undocumented, etc.) remain. Tell Congress to get to work!
Chris N says
The legal question “Does an anchor baby have a right to run for president or vise president” needs to be addressed. It might not sound like much but it’s a bid deal and I’m sure it will and should be ruled on by the supreme court.
Laughing says
That is already answered… the baby is a United States citizen born in the US of A and therefore is eligible upon reaching the age of 35 with out any felonies to run for the office of President of the United States of America.
If you want to start picking which citizen can run based on lineage, you would have to suggest removing the current POTUS due to his granddad being Bavarian and the POTUS’ mother being Scottish.
Brian Dumas says
it has nothing to do with “lineage”, thats a pure crap argument just made to get under folks
skin there.
It has to do with complex many as yet unresolved questions . So if a American GI and his wife
were on holiday in France and the wife was pregnant and the bun popped out of the oven in a
Paris hospital , does that mean that decades later that child could annonce thier run for the
presidency of France . eeeeh NOT .
Musing and studying legal issues and questions doesn;t make one a racist or bigot.
Laughing says
To be President of France “A candidate for an election must be a French citizen, have attained the age of 18 years, be qualified to vote, not be ineligible by reason of criminal conviction or judicial decision, and have a bank account.”
And of course to be a citizen “A child born in France to foreign parents may acquire French citizenship: at birth, if stateless. at 18, if resident in France with at least 5 years’ residence since age 11. between 16 and 18 upon request by the child and if resident in France with at least 5 years’ residence since age 11.”
So, actually yes that child could run for President if born off base, and the parents register the child, and perhaps the parents immigrate there as well.
Your weak counter argument should have been researched more.
Loam says
Very true. There have been many issues that Congress refuses to address; this is one of them. Why don’t Congress codify laws on abortion based on Roe v Wade? Make it official laws!
Congress needs to define citizenship questions raised in the Wong Kim Ark case. They create the laws of the country, so tell them to get to work!
Dave says
It just doesn’t matter Loam. Trump and Friends will just lie about it anyway just like they did with President Obama’s birth certificate.
No amount of evidence or documentation will convince some people of the facts of the matter.
Funny how people who look the other way while Trump plays fast and loose with everything now want this investigated. Give it the same pass as you do with Trump.
Diana says
She’ll make a great president,,,,, LOL!
beegee4 says
Dr. Eastman brings his bad lawyering and distorted thought processes into the classroom. Students complain that he imposes his political viewpoints and apparently are not heard Expensive tuition, school struggles with accreditation and low bar pass rate. In a comparable article several years ago, Eastman found that Canada-born Ted Cruz was eminently qualified to serve.