“But that is not what the term meant to the authors of the U.S. Constitution.”
Except what the term meant to the authors doesn’t actually carry legal weight. What the term means to the last Supreme Court justices that bothered to rule on it is what actually carries weight.
Nobody in authority will ever enforce your interpretation, as evidenced by the 2 Obama terms.
That bridge has been crossed.
Obama was not qualified either.
didnt the founding fathers exempt themselves because they did not meet the nbc requirement?
Yes, but...
Wake me when you’re on the SCOTUS.
In the mean time, this is stupid.
Kamala Harris, Nikki Haley, and Vivek Ramaswamy are not eligible to serve as president of the United States.
_____________________________________
Yeah. Right. And neither is Barack Obama. Oh wait. He DID serve. Which means this NBC business is still a load of garbage.
Why can’t you people wake up to reality?
agreed on the constitutional law, any genuine legal scholar knows this and knows it quite well
I did not know about Haley.
I knew of course about Obama and Harris and Cruz (alas!) and a couple others
thanks for the information
That battle was fought and lost with Obummer.
Can you cite EXACTLY where that definition is in the Constitution? A lot of people just make up stuff.
So, anyone who has a parent born outside the U.S., is not eligible to be president?
This is a great explanation. I’d like to hear a counter-argument, and hear it debated. But this is a very solid explanation.
The only argument I know of is that SCOTUS under Roberts wants little to do with electoral questions. Roberts’ stance of “solve it at the ballot box” (like Obamacare) appears to be the prevailing view.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
is a clarification of Article 2 Section 1's:
"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"
Of course, we're used to talking about Article 14 in terms of anchor babies not being citizens (because their parents are subject to the authority of their home country). But it's possible to interpret Article 1's "natural born citizen" text in the same light (qualifications of birth citizenship for president isn't based on where you were born, but if your parents were citizens when you were born).
Frankly, I'd rather win the argument with the Article 14 interpretation, both for prez and for birthright citizenship (no anchor babies), than win the argument over the home soil a candidate was born at.
They most certainly “can” be...by virtual of Obama’s election and 8 years as president.
For all you commenting “it’s too late” “doesnt matter now” etc
So if someone does something wrong you just say oh well that wrong thing is now ok to do? Great parenting let alone nation safeguarding.
I dont even care about how S court ruled on some matters related to this, they are not always right, or inline with constitution.
Just because afew people dont stand on principle doesnt mean we should cave too. God is watching to see how many will stand firm or go mushy.
That train left the station in 2008.
But.....Obama became president so all bets are off.
It’s a moot point because in a few years it will be impossible to know where anyone is really from.