Posted on 08/30/2023 10:02:25 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Kamala Harris, Nikki Haley, and Vivek Ramaswamy are not eligible to serve as president of the United States. Nor are Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Why? They are not “natural born citizens,” which is one of the presidential requirements outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Making that claim, of course, immediately prompts a response of, “Of course they are natural born citizens! What are you, a racist?” But those who are eager to ridicule and condemn such a statement of ineligibility are merely demonstrating their ignorance of the term natural born citizen. What is important, however, is not what television pundits (or “pundints,” as they often incorrectly refer to themselves) believe the term means, but what the Founding Fathers understood the term to mean when they decreed the following:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Probably close to 100 percent of Americans alive today believe the term natural born citizen simply means born in the United States of America. But that is not what the term meant to the authors of the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
But someone such as Vivek is not a naturalized citizen.
Some Freepers say that there are two main classes to citizens, those being natural born,or those who are naturalized. If you didn’t have to be naturalized to be a citizen, then that makes you natural born .
That proves nothing just as the fraudulent election proves nothing.
True, someone would have to file a suit, and it would almost certainly have to be against a presidential or vice-presidential candidate, since those are the only cases where the distinction between “natural born citizen” and just plain “citizen” really comes into play.
But also, the suit would have to be filed by someone who has standing, and can demonstate actual harm. So I guess maybe the second place contender that loses to a candidate might be able to do it, for they could argue that, if the law was applied properly, they would have won the race, so they have actually been harmed by misapplication of the law.
I wouldn’t wager much money on the courts wanting to take such a case though.
(Is Arnold a US citizen? Then yeah. He could be president.)
Wrong! He is not eligible.
Wait. You’re saying if we don’t agree with you God will punish us? Begone. We don’t need totalitarians here in. You obviously want the conservatives to lose resulting in a totalitarian murder state. I think you are the one who needs to worry about God.
“didnt the founding fathers exempt themselves because they did not meet the nbc requirement?”
I see... They were all born in a British colony, none of them qualified with that logic. Is that from the Federalist papers?
That ship sailed in 08
That ship sailed on 1/20/09.
Even Arnold doesn’t agree with that.
Well, I was born in Washington DC (Bolling AFB). Am I not a natural born citizen either?
A so called fraudulent election gave us 8 years of Barack Obama. You call that nothing? Again, I plead with you NBC people - come back to reality.
You think the 3/5s compromise was pro-slavery? Have you been listening to the 1619 project or something?
Who is going to stop them?
But also irrelevant, as is most of the Constitution under the current regime.
What we need is someone with both the understanding and the will to do what is necessary to clean house. Even Trump strikes me as too much of a choir boy to do that, too infused with 1960s civic lessons who doesn't realize that his political enemies need to be destroyed before they destroy him and finish off what's left of the American republic.
Good question. You were born in a district, not a state.
I stand with the founders original intent. Do you?
________________________________________
No. And I told you why. They may have had good intentions, but they screwed up.
Have you been listening to the 1619 project or something?
_________________________________________
Obviously not. Since I don’t know what the 1619 project is.
“But someone such as Vivek is not a naturalized citizen.”
Yes, but what I mean is that to say, essentially, “if someone doesn’t have allegiance to a foreign country, they must be natural born” is a bad argument. Since we already have a ready example at hand of people who don’t (or at who have sworn not to) have allegiance to a foreign country who are definitely not natural born, and that is the naturalized citizens.
“Some Freepers say that there are two main classes to citizens, those being natural born,or those who are naturalized.”
Yes, but that’s a slightly different argument. If there are 2 classes, then “not A” must equal B. That’s sound (if the premise is correct, and you can’t be a member of both).
The variation based on whether they have allegiance is more like: If there are two classes, and a third condition, to say “A doesn’t have this condition, therefore, if you don’t have this condition, you must be in class A” is a fallacious argument if anyone can demonstrate that even one member of class B also doesn’t have that condition.
Good point. What are the chances of the federal courts getting involved?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.