The Constitution Absolutely Prohibits Nikki Haley From Being President Or Vice President › American

[mystery-ak]

The Constitution Absolutely Prohibits Nikki Haley From Being President Or Vice President › American Greatness
Paul Ingrassia


The question of presidential eligibility under the Constitution has been a hot button one, especially in recent years with the controversial campaigns of John McCain, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, and most recently, Kamala Harris. The controversy arises from the text of the Constitution itself. Article II, Section 1, stipulates that “No person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The core issue centers on the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen.” The Constitution explicitly lays out three requirements to run for president: (i) be at least 35 years old; (ii) have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years; and (iii) be a natural-born citizen of the United States.

The question of natural born citizenship is crystal clear, though it often gets confused with the more controversial debate surrounding birthright citizenship. From the outset, it should be stressed that the two are entirely different constitutional issues. The question of natural-born citizenship as an eligibility requirement for president is well settled, whereas the issue of birthright citizenship is still up in the air.

There is a reason the Founding Fathers attached the requirement of being a “natural born citizen” to the President (and, with the passage of the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President) only and no other federal offices. The idea was to elevate the threshold for the highest elected political office of the land; notably, that language is absent in Article I, which stipulates that lawmakers running for the House or Senate need only be “citizens” to qualify. The early debates surrounding the passage of the Constitution add support for the view that the Framers wanted to exclude “the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government,” as John Jay wrote to George Washington in July of 1787.

more
https://amgreatness.com/2024/01/01/the-constitution-absolutely-prohibits-nikki-haley-from-being-president-or-vice-president/

[The_Reader_David]

Here we go again.  The U.S. Constitution presupposes the Common Law, and "natural born citizen" is the republican equivalent of "natural born subject", which Blackstone's commentary on the Common Law defined as a person subject to the Crown from birth.  If the view popular in some quarters that "natural born citizen" refers not to the Common Law inherited from Britain, but to the theorizing of the Swiss writer Vattel, were true, the location of Obama's birth would have been irrelevant -- he was not a "native" in Vattel's sense, regardless of where he was born, since his father was not a U.S. citizen -- but the original "birther" movement very much cared about the location of his birth, as his citizenship status turned on that given his mother's age at time of birth and prevailing citizenship laws at the time.

[Hoodat]

The States would be the ones placing her name on the ballot.  Take it up with them.

[libertybele]

Here we go again.  The U.S. Constitution presupposes the Common Law, and "natural born citizen" is the republican equivalent of "natural born subject", which Blackstone's commentary on the Common Law defined as a person subject to the Crown from birth.  If the view popular in some quarters that "natural born citizen" refers not to the Common Law inherited from Britain, but to the theorizing of the Swiss writer Vattel, were true, the location of Obama's birth would have been irrelevant -- he was not a "native" in Vattel's sense, regardless of where he was born, since his father was not a U.S. citizen -- but the original "birther" movement very much cared about the location of his birth, as his citizenship status turned on that given his mother's age at time of birth and prevailing citizenship laws at the time.

It makes no difference....Obama was allowed to run and was sworn in as president. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Here we go again.  The U.S. Constitution presupposes the Common Law, and "natural born citizen" is the republican equivalent of "natural born subject", which Blackstone's commentary on the Common Law defined as a person subject to the Crown from birth.

That's the bottom line. Blackstone was the legal bible for Colonial and early American lawyers.  The idea that the Framers and those who voted to ratify the Constitution would have ditched Blackstone in favor of de Vattel without so much as a single public comment to that effect is absurd.