With who? What has she renounced from this list?
>>Tulsi might actually be sincere<<
I believe she is sincere. Scathing rebuke of the rat party.
She could very well become a running mate in 2024.
With who? What has she renounced from this list?
One of my main objections to Gabbard’s executive branch candidacy, notwithstanding her (former) mostly doctrinaire progressive liberalism; is that she is not an Article II, Section one, clause 5 natural born citizen who is constitutionally qualified to assume the office of POTUS.
Even though SCOTUS has never directly issued a ruling on what type of citizen makes one an Article II eligible president, in every case wherein they have given a definition of what a natural born citizen is, (Venus Merchantman 1814, Minor vs Happersett, Wong Kim Ark vs US) those descriptions bear no relationship to Gabbard’s birth circumstance.
Because of the SCOTUS’s acquiescence for Obama’s 8 “presidential” years, followed by the equally ineligible Harris, we cannot get the SCOTUS to adjudicate this Article III matter for the first time in US history.
Tulsi Gabbard was born on April 12, 1981, in Leloaloa, Maoputasi County, on American Samoa’s main island of Tutuila.
Tuaua v. United States, US DC District Court, 2012
According to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the people born in American Samoa – including those born on Swains Island – are “nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth”. If a child is born on any of these islands to any U.S. citizen, then that child is considered a national and a citizen of the United States at birth. In an amicus curiae brief filed in federal court, Samoan Congressman Faleomavaega supported the legal interpretation that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not extend birthright citizenship to United States nationals born in unincorporated territories.
All U.S. nationals have statutory rights to reside in the United States (i.e., the 50 states and Puerto Rico), and may apply for citizenship by naturalization after three months of residency by passing a test in English and civics, and by taking an oath of allegiance to the United States. However, the INA makes clear that any “national but not a citizen of the United States” who at any time has been convicted of any aggravated felony, whether the aggravated felony was committed inside or outside the United States, is “debarred from becoming a citizen of the United States”
Gabbard is a US citizen at birth (not a US Natural Born Citizen) due to her US citizen mother. A statute, the Immigration and Naturalization Act, passed in the 20th century, holds that anyone born to a US citizen parent anywhere in the world is a US citizen. This statute did not modify the intent of Article II, section one, clause 5 of the constitution, ratified in 1787. A statute cannot amend the meaning or intent of a constitutional provision. That requires an Article V amendment process.
Being a “Citizen at Birth” is not analogous to being a “Natural Born Citizen.” They are not the same thing. Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico are citizens at birth also. None of them are Article II Natural born citizens either.
I anticipate that those of us who raise this objection will be derided as being obsessed with mere constitutional “technicalities.” If Gabbard is sincere, then I think that she might be better for the job then a whole plethora of radical natural born citizens who are actually Article II eligible. But we did not get to where we are with so many deliberate misinterpretations of the constitution by adherence to originalism. (I refer you to Kentaji Brown Jackson’s recent masturbatory musings on the 14th amendment)
It would be good to have a rigorous examination of this issue by SCOTUS at long last.