Maybe so maybe not, until the Supreme Court hears a case due to the ambiguity of the amendment we just can't say.
But who cares? She has no chance to win the presidency and Trump will never pick her as VP. Its a mute point.
Moot point maybe mute too!
“Maybe so maybe not, until the Supreme Court hears a case due to the ambiguity of the amendment we just can’t say.”
I agree with that. Furthermore, the lengthiness of that article alone tells me that yes, there’s ambiguity.
Why do you need the SC to read to you what the Constitution says?
In Nimrids case IT IS SIMPLE! “patents (plural) must be Citizens of the USA.”
NIMROD has NEITHER parent being a Citizen. Sometimes a Resident . . . But not a Citizen.
Yes we clearly need a USSC definition. They rejected 6 cases on Sotero.
Jay and Washington exchanged a letter expressing their concern about a “foreigner” being commander -in-chief.
We also have Vattel’s definition from 1744 which the founders knew about. A NBC has citizen parents and is born in country.
Here is the logic. If a child born in the US but has foreigners as parents, the child has a choice of citizenship. Using Sotero, his father was British as a Kenya at that time. So Sotero could have declared british or US. Does anyone think the founders would have accepted a Brit as commander in chief, especially after two wars?
The ability to have options about your citizenship means you are not automatically a NBC; thus you are ineligible to be president.
This recently applied to Jindal, Harris, Sotero, and I don’t know about Vivek’s parents.