Just thinking out loud.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (108)
sorted by:
That would be the case, I think. But we'd have to prove Kamala is ineligible and that would be a whole big deal, wouldn't it?
They won’t find her ineligible. She was born in the US.
She is in the same situation Obama said he was in (except that Obama is actually a Muslim born in Kenya but he said he was born here)
Except at least one of Obama's parents was a citizen. As far as I know, neither of Harris' parents were citizens.
That’s irrelevant to the analysis of her citizenship under current jurisprudence - hence the issue with “anchor babies.”
That's why unconstitutional laws and clearly bastardized views of law and the Constitution must be challenged. Just because we've done it incorrectly for a long time doesn't mean we should keep doing it incorrectly.
Correct
That doesn't matter any more because of the combination effect of Article II section 1 and the 14th amendment.
No one is not going to convince the SCOTUS to evaluate "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" at this late stage.
So it's over. Kamala is eligible. I really wish there were a 'with prejudice' way of making this a dead issue on this forum, because it keeps coming up and it's is still wrong. Nothing has changed, and we are not going to win the argument by continuing to say things that are incorrect.
So, the Constitution was purposefully bastardized to give anchor babies citizenship and to pretend they are natural born citizens, and we should just accept it and keep going along with it, because it was always done that way? By your logic, nothing unconstitutional should ever be challenged, because it's always been done that way.