No, The Constitution Does Not Allow Children Born Of Non-Citizens To Become President Of The United States
(www.thegatewaypundit.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (104)
sorted by:
Nikki Haley, the daughter of two non-citizens, is patently ineligible to serve as President or Vice President under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution
The following analysis is a detailed response to critiques of an article I wrote earlier this month that garnered national attention, and was even Truthed by President Trump, shedding light on Nikki Haley’s ineligibility to serve as President or Vice President under the Constitution. My article was published originally on my Substack and American Greatness, and was titled “The Constitution Absolutely Prohibits Nikki Haley From Being President Or Vice President.”
Now do Kamala Harris.
And obama
Obama's mother was American though
Obama is kenyan
Daddy was British (Kenya was a UK territory), assuming his story is remotely true, and Barry was probably born in Kenya.
Exactly.
Only if we followed the Constitution and not the corporate policy of rhe deep state insurgents.
Exactly. Law of the land and tell them to shove their Maritime laws.
And yet they make up crimes to remove Trump from the primary ballot while letting Nikki Haley stay on the same ballots.
Too bad Vivek never pointed this out in the “ debates”
Good observation. What question the follows?
Is he unaware? ( Nescience)
Let's presume he is, what then does that tell you about him and his adherence to the rule of law?
What other reason could there be for someone like him to ignore the constitutional provision?
Does he share the same disability?
If not, what would then cause him to outright ignore the constitutional requitement? To combat a competitor for high office, would that not be a legitimate matter to point out? Or has politics become so divorced from the constitution that constitutional requirements no longer hold sway? If so, what does that tell you?
Probably he is in the same boat.
Interdasting…..
Vivek, like Nimrata ("Nikki"), Kamala Harris, Ted Cruz, and Brak 0bummer... are all not "Natural Born Citizens" of the USA. And cannot be President, legally.
Her name is “Nimrata”?
This story sucks.
Afraid of being called a “birther”? The liberal left have managed to censor our speech in many subtle and not so subtle ways. One of the worst things they have done to if you ask me. Watch “All In The Family” some time and count all the words we aren’t allowed to say now but were allowed back in the day.
While true, what are the odds that All in the Family - which starred [Rob Reiner] and [Bea Arthur], began being broadcast on CBS under [Fred Silverman], continued being broadcast under Steering Committee member of the Bilderburg Group Arthur R. Taylor, was developed by [Norman Lear], and also had a certain [pattern of writers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_All_in_the_Family_episodes ] - was created to inflame passions among Hegelian targets from being spoken about hatefully for nigh a decade? How come the other auditions for Michael were [Harrison Ford] and [Richard Dreyfuss]?
Obviously the common denominator among those listed is that they’re all men, but more than that, free speech does not necessarily equate to wise speech or moral speech.
He is not eligible either....that's probably why.
That is their MO even in the past.
This will be addressed by SCOTUS in the near future. Thank you for sharing this information.
What about the finding that being born on American soil, within the national boundaries, makes one a natural born citizen? Any weight to that?
You have to go back to what the founders meant by "Natural Born Citizen."
It meant being born (a) on American soil (b) to two American citizen parents.
Remember, there was no such thing as a general US citizenship. Everyone was a citizen of the State where they were born, and therefor could be referred to as US citizen (until the 14th screwed it all up).
The only exception was for those who were living at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, because the USA and citizenship of the States did not exist until the British colonies broke away.
Why would they want ONLY a natural born citizen -- and not just any citizen?
Because of loyalty. Loyal to America, not the foreign country where they were born.
This is also why the 14th Amendment includes "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Any child whose parents were citizens of another country are subject to that foreign country.
Two Mexican citizens invade the USA and have a baby. That child is subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico, and therefore are Mexican citizens.
The idea of the anchor baby is not law. It is merely a regulation on how to interpret the law, and that can be reversed with an executive order by the POTUS.
THIS ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️
Born on US soil = granting of citizenship automatically, although I consider that an incorrect decision and unConstitutional.
But not a "Natural Born" Citizen. Meaning born to two American citizens, on US soil.
If my parents are both American citizens why do I need to be born on US soil? People take vacations.
That would be a citizen (automatically), but not, as I understand it, a natural born citizen.
The distinction is meant to more or less equate to “didn’t need any paperwork to be recognized as American, and has no other citizenship “.
That is my read of it. But unfortunately unlike the Great and Powerful Brak 0bummer, I am not a Constitutional Scholar. So IANAL and YMMV.
The question comes when neither parent is a citizen. The Founding Fathers did not want to hand us back to the UK. Or any other foreign nation. This will definitely head to SCOTUS.