Posted on 09/03/2023 11:45:21 AM PDT by Its All Over Except ...
He's certainly working toward that goal. But I'm not convinced of his reliability.
Unfortunately, Trump has proven to be a poor judge of character. Trump likes yes men. Praise clouds his judgment.
Trump would be wise to pick him ahead of time and campaign as a team. Especially since his movements are likely to be restricted- not to mention the obvious fact that he is a target and Vivek is not.
Like most of Trump’s detractors, you are heavily fixated on his personality.
Most of us support Trump because he is fighting mostly for the right things and gets them done.
All of the RINOs are just there to provide the illusion of choice. They’re worthless. We have decades of proof.
That is a different question. In a different thread perhaps.
This is about the definition of natural born citizen. Not about who qualifies. If someone fits the definition then they do qualify. I just looked at Harris’ bio. She has two non American parents, neither of whom presented diplomatic credentials to the US State Dept.
They and she were therefore subject to US jurisdiction when she was born on US soil. How can there be more debate. This is the clear specified condition.
And I have just looked at this Nikki Haley person. Born on US soil to parents, neither of whom presented diplomatic credentials to the US State Dept. And thus they and she were subject to US jurisdiction. How can there be more debate.
So are you saying that all these people clearly are natural born citizens, eligible to be president or vice president?
If so then indeed the debate is over.
The reason for the ongoing debate is that many Freepers take the position, that both of your parents must have been citizens at the time of your birth, for you to be a natural born citizen.
If now we are saying, were the parents subject to US jurisdiction at the time of your birth, regardless of their citizenship status, then that changes things.
I don’t know if you have followed the Free Republic debate on this issue, but the key issue has been, were someone’s parents American citizens, and not just living in America and subject to US jurisdiction.
The criteria people use to evaluate this, will decide whether someone thinks these people are natural born citizens.
If everyone agreed that all are natural born citizens, there would not be ongoing debate on this site on this issue.
Freeper debate cannot undo the law unless they persuade Congress to change it.
Note that the first 9 presidents of the US were born outside US jurisdiction, because the US did not exist. They were born on US soil and qualify only from the clause “citizens at time of Constitution adoption”. Their parents were most certainly not citizens of the US and they were born outside US jurisdiction but qualified via the relevant clause.
I know there is some desire to outlaw illegal immigrants’ babies from citizenship via birthright, and God knows why since those people are nearly all devout South and Central American Catholics, anti abortion and would not vote Dem, but for some reason that’s the attitude.
But none of that matters. Jurisdiction is the key word. If you want it undone, you will have to pass laws, and that’s not going to happen.
I feel Trump will be the nominee and he will have my vote. Trump along with Coolidge and Reagan are the three best presidents of the past 100 years. I mention that to show where I’m coming from.
I posed the rhetorical question based on the anti-Ramaswamy comments. Evil comes in degrees and it always boils down to the least-worst choice in voting. Ramaswamy earned my alternative vote when he declared the climate crisis to be a hoax. I cannot recall any Republican politician taking that informed and firm stand.
Indeed, that is the key issue. There is existing law on the matter and it can be found with a reading of the Constitution.
Those who drafted the Constitution and voted on its language thought the NBC requirement - to be applied only to our commander-in-chief and the VP and no one else - was a common-sense essential element of our national security. The language was included and accepted without debate.
They understood that at the beginning of our nation there would be no presidential candidates who were born to U.S. citizens. They therefore included specific language to the Constitution that would clarify that point.
Not everyone reads the document with understanding and others are willing overlook the NBC requirement for the sake of their own political agenda.
Every American, however, should consider the major political shift our nation has experienced in the past 15 years or so and wonder whether continuing to disregard the clause makes sense.
Yes a BIG NO to Vivek as VP.
That could make him prez in 2029.
We need a Natural Born Citizen for VP.
Plus I prefer a secular or Christian person for VP.
Hinduism is a pagen Religion that believes that there are thousands of gods.
Namaste means the god in me greets the god in you.
There is ONLY ONE GOD!
That’s rich coming from Georgie, who belonged to an administration with a President who committed multiple felonies, including perjury, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. He was impeached for these things. But I guess that’s okay with Georgie, since his boss wasn’t “convicted”.
I think he would very much like to beat Trump. But he’s taking the approach that we need to focus on the issues and not focus on doing 2024 Election Interference crimes which is what Biden and so many anti-Democracy people are doing right now. I think he also knows that he’s not guaranteed to be the nominee & probably is cognizant that his odds are less than 1 in 5 and less than Trump’s odds.
His parents were in the USA legally. He’s as much a Citizen as anyone else born in the USA. And keep in mind that there have been many US Presidents who have parents that were not born in the USA. I predict that at least 10 others besides me will disagree with you here + at least 10x as many silently.
There’s also the matter of grandfathering where people born before any such laws are enacted will have a case to be exempt from some new definition. That means the 2060 election would be the first one where the exclusions sought by some could actually go into effect. IMO its a stupid fight to take up and those who push for it open themselves up to attacks of being racist.
He’s never going to be VP. Enjoy your dream, though. I don’t believe a word he spews.
“There is nothing more to debate.”
There is still the matter of whether the law will be enforced.
That law was already ignored by the courts in 2008 and 2012.
Then, in 2020, an election was blatantly stolen - and the courts ignored that too.
Laws mean nothing if they are not enforced.
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.