Who’s Funding Nikki Haley’s run?
DEMOCRATS
Posted on 01/31/2023 7:36:38 PM PST by Republicans 2016 2020
Now there’s an obtuse dimwit. Who is advising her? Advise her to get her ears cleaned because she can’t hear the masses, no one wants her. Piss off, Nimrata. Kari Lake has a better chance.
So, the first “swamp” candidate has announced. Who is next?
Has anyone else officially announced they intend to run as a GOPe candidate?
She’s actually running for VP.
Hope the nominee doesn’t take the bait.
Trump. See post #14.
Nikki Haley: Mitt Romney in a dress.
First a Kenyon, now another foreigner...
donation money.
Then he must be trying to pad the field with losers who he can brag about beating after the primaries. How many was it last time, 15? 17?
She has a snow ball’s chance in hell of winning.
No
I am coming out ahead of the pack and saying, No Thanks.
HaHa!
Ditto Larry Hogan. Delusions of grandeur.
No! Just no!
Overly high opinion of herself.
We absolutely do not need Nikki Haley.
I got the impression that Nikki Haley left the UN job to avoid an investigation of free flights she had accepted from businessmen.
So, where does this fit in?
As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of “jurisdiction,” understood in the sense of “allegiance,” “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.”
In 1898, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark declared that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common-law definition of birthright citizenship. Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller’s dissenting opinion, however, argued that birthright citizenship had been repealed by the principles of the American Revolution and rejected by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nonetheless, the decision conferred birthright citizenship on a child of legal residents of the United States. Although the language of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark is certainly broad enough to include the children born in the United States of illegal as well as legal immigrants, there is no case in which the Supreme Court has explicitly held that this is the unambiguous command of the Fourteenth Amendment.
There were more than a few reasons they got rid of Pres Trump. I’m betting one of them being that he was going to challenge this and get rid of the “unambiguous command of the Fourteenth Amendment” and put an end to anchor babies once and for all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.