No, The Constitution Does Not Allow Children
Born Of Non-Citizens To Become President
Of The United States
Gateway Pundit,
by
Paul Ingrassia
Original Article
Posted By: rememberwhen,
1/19/2024 2:14:31 PM
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...President Trump’s two parents were both citizens at the time he was born on American soil, in Queens, New York, in 1946... Therefore, he meets the Constitutional standard for eligibility. Nikki Haley, on the other hand, is a much different story.
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
kono 1/19/2024 2:23:11 PM (No. 1639995)
No, indeed. The Constitution does not allow it. But if the constitutionally-ineligible politician in question is a Commie, the mainstream media won't speak out against it. (Especially if he is a Choom Master named Barry Soetoro.)
26 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
mre 1/19/2024 2:30:45 PM (No. 1640001)
The article is wrong. She is a U.S. citizen:
Citizenship through Birth
Under United States law, any person born within the United States (including the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands) is automatically granted U.S. citizenship. There is an exemption for children of parents who are foreign diplomats or members of a sovereign Native American tribe. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
As most Americans are born on U.S. soil, this is clearly the post common of the ways to become a U.S. citizen.
8 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
bpl40 1/19/2024 2:36:53 PM (No. 1640004)
The SCOTUS has not definitively ruled as to who is a Natural Born citizen. The ruling so far has defined non-citizen i.e. alien versus citizen. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution it was commonly understood that Natural Born citizen meant north parents had to be citizens at the time of birth. But ‘‘tis was not explicitly defined. At that time there was no such thing as Green Card Holder. It could be argued that even though GC holders are called Registered Aliens, they formally sworn allegiance to the United States and declared under oath their intention to become citizens when eligible. The SCOTUS could hold that as adequate for purpose of qualifying to be President. In any case an urgent ruling is required.
2 people like this.
The writer fails to make the case that someone needs to be born with either or both parents being citizens in order to be eligible to become President. My understanding of "natural born citizen" is that they must be a citizen by birth as opposed to being a naturalized citizen. I am unaware of any of those who wrote that clause writing a definition of "natural born citizen", so we are left to our own devices to figure out what it means.
6 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
EJKrausJr 1/19/2024 3:31:36 PM (No. 1640032)
Whoops. Nimarata was an anchor baby. Welcome to America Nimarata. You are ineligible to be President. When will you drop out?
14 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
OhioNick 1/19/2024 3:37:14 PM (No. 1640038)
The first version of the 14th Amendment was ambiguous about the notion of Birthright Citizenship. For that reason, the Senate refused to ratify it. After it was rewritten by Senator Jacob Howard (MI), he went on the floor of the Senate and gave a speech about how it did NOT include birthright citizenship.
From 1868 until 1982, the 14th Amendment banned Birthright Citizenship. In the 1950s, a million Mexicans -- including their children who born here -- were returned to their own country by President Eisenhower. There were no protests and no lawsuits because the law said these children were NOT considered citizens.
It wasn't until 1982, when Supreme Court Justice William Brennan ruled that the 14th Amendment did in fact allow for Birthright Citizenship. He did so in the footnote of an unrelated case -- whether or not Texas had to educate foreign children. Since 1982, no court has tacked the issue of Birthright Citizenship, but a Supreme Court that views the Constitution in the traditional sense would certainly rule against Brennan's dictate.
9 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
DVC 1/19/2024 3:42:46 PM (No. 1640044)
Not a 'natural born citizen' as required by the Constitution. And The Zero wasn't legal either, but the fraudsters and 'anti-racists' shouted down the voices pointing out his ineligibility....because he was black.
Will Haley's ineligibility be similarly ignored?
13 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
OhioNick 1/19/2024 3:47:45 PM (No. 1640048)
Sorry for the second post.
Nikki Haley is -- at best -- a first generation Native Born Citizen, not a second generation Natural Born Citizen as required to be president by the U.S. Constitution. Since the Constitution does not come with a glossary, you have to look at the source material used by its writers.
The Founding Fathers certainly did not pull the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" out of thin air. The phrase was a legal concept that was mentioned in only one document. There were three copies of the legal book, "The Laws Of Nation" by Emmerick De Vattel, at the Constitutional Convention and the book clearly defines a National Born Citizen as someone born of citizen parents. The Founding Fathers included the requirement because they didn't want a president with dual loyalties.
Nikki Haley does not meet this requirement. Neither does Kamala Harris. As for Barack Obama who had only one citizen parent, that's why when he was a senator he tried, but failed, to change the legal definition of Natural Born Citizen.
8 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
DanvilleBill 1/19/2024 3:53:13 PM (No. 1640052)
I always go to the Gateway Pundit for in depth analysis of all issues regarding the Constitution of The United States.
9 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Ozwestie 1/19/2024 4:08:20 PM (No. 1640066)
So wouldn’t that also make Kamala ineligible as well? Her parents weren’t citizens when she was born in the US.
13 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
snakeoil 1/19/2024 4:49:32 PM (No. 1640102)
Hussein the Horrible infested the White House for 8 unbearable long years and he wasn't even a citizen. Whether he was born in Kenya or Pineapple Land he resided in Indonesia for years and lost any claim to American citizenship. Lost all interest in Nikki when she praised Hillary.
13 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
OhioNick 1/19/2024 5:24:13 PM (No. 1640126)
#11
Immigration laws were different when Obama was born. His mother could not legally "confer" citizenship to her son because she had lived outside of this country for a number of years and hadn't spent enough time back in the U.S.
We live in a post-constitutional period where laws are ignored or blatantly broken by Democrats. Additionally, statute of limitations can be ignored when your target is Donald Trump.
12 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "rememberwhen"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Ingrassia makes a convincing case that Haley is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president or vice-president of the United States.