Sorry but no. The founders were very clear in their papers. They specifically stated that only that generation could skip the natural born requirement because no one's parents were American since America was brand new. I had an excellent US History teacher in high school. She made us read a series of books written.
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States 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.
This is literal and completely unambiguous. There is exactly zero argument for her not being eligible. We need another path.
If that is true then we are only wasting time looking like retards trying to twist a way that she is ineligible. The plain truth is that she is eligible to hold the office of President and that is not going to change. Just because we do not like a fact does not mean it is fake news.
Nobody gives a shit if you disagree, What matters is the literal text of the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This was determined in 1898. That is 126 years of legal precedent. Neither you, nor anyone else will ever successfully argue that she is ineligible.
We all know she is an anchor baby. Someone born here is deemed a citizen - a bit embarrassing, but not illegal.
Crucial is birth certificate with American hospital on it. If not, she's not.
Sorry but no. The founders were very clear in their papers. They specifically stated that only that generation could skip the natural born requirement because no one's parents were American since America was brand new. I had an excellent US History teacher in high school. She made us read a series of books written.
Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States 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.
This is literal and completely unambiguous. There is exactly zero argument for her not being eligible. We need another path.
We don't need another path, she's very unpopular, that's enough to get trounced in a fraudulently free election.
If that is true then we are only wasting time looking like retards trying to twist a way that she is ineligible. The plain truth is that she is eligible to hold the office of President and that is not going to change. Just because we do not like a fact does not mean it is fake news.
I disagree - sorry.
Nobody gives a shit if you disagree, What matters is the literal text of the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This was determined in 1898. That is 126 years of legal precedent. Neither you, nor anyone else will ever successfully argue that she is ineligible.