2965
Comments (108)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
0
TexasPiper 0 points ago +2 / -2

It’s possible she is ineligible. Enter piglosi.

9
PARTY-OF-CONSENT 9 points ago +9 / -0

I agree. The "natural born" phrase in the late 1700's would clearly have been interpreted as "father is a LOYAL citizen". Today it means nothing, but a case could be made for Obama and Ted Cruz, in both cases the mother is a citizen - Obama supposedly born in Hawaii probably makes it, Cruz born in Canada, it seems as long as mother is a citizen you are natural born. In the 1960's the citizen parent had to act to register the child with State Dept. or the child would NOT be a citizen. Kummala is an anchor baby - she was born here while her parents were here temporarily with no intent to become citizens - not "subject to the jurisdiction of ..". They lived in Canada for a while then came back - the anchor baby helped them get back in. How that can be a natural-born citizen escapes me, but it has been clearly demonstrated that the Constitution is a pretty piece of penmanship work today but no one can decipher the markings.

1
TexasPiper 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sad but true. The language is quite clear but has been twisted to a mangled heap of what it once was.

1
HockeyMom4Trump 1 point ago +1 / -0

I can’t believe I have never heard this before.

1
knifeinourbacks 1 point ago +1 / -0

You are wrong. Originalism implies that Ted Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen. He was naturalized at birth and there is a difference. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-be-president-20160110-story.html

1
capefog 1 point ago +1 / -0

You cannot be "naturalized at birth", you either have citizenship at birth or you don't.

2
HiddenDekuScrub 2 points ago +2 / -0

A downright scary thought...