The Constitution says Nothing of parentage.
Per U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,(169 US. 649), anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
Wong Kim Ark was not specifically about "Natural Born Citizen" per the Constitution. The words written by the justice who wrote that opinion were not addressing this specific issue. It was not "on point."
So, it is a false argument.
The issue has to do with what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote into the Constitution the specific words, "Natural Born Citizen" AND also exempted their own generation, since none of them could have met the criteria.
For that, we turn to the "Law of Nations," which the Founders referred to among other legal resources (such as Blackstone), to understand what their understanding was.
He is NOT a natural born citizen, so like a Kamala, should not even be allowed to run.
He was born in Cincinnati, OH Do better
"Natural Born Citizen" is NOT the same thing as "citizen." Read the Constitution.
"Natural Born Citizen" MEANS (a) born on USA soil, (b) AND born to 2 parents who were BOTH US citizens at the time of birth.
This is 2023.
How could you not KNOW that?
The Constitution says Nothing of parentage. Per U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,(169 US. 649), anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
Wong Kim Ark was not specifically about "Natural Born Citizen" per the Constitution. The words written by the justice who wrote that opinion were not addressing this specific issue. It was not "on point."
So, it is a false argument.
The issue has to do with what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote into the Constitution the specific words, "Natural Born Citizen" AND also exempted their own generation, since none of them could have met the criteria.
For that, we turn to the "Law of Nations," which the Founders referred to among other legal resources (such as Blackstone), to understand what their understanding was.