Posted on 11/15/2023 5:55:35 AM PST by euram
Hopefully. She’s usually pretty with it. I always thought she was pro Trump.
Strike one.
Nikki Haley - Strike two
Got me. She endorsed Nikki for president of Israel.
‼️
Uh…no they have not.
According to what legal declaration that contravenes the 14th Amendment?
And please, don't post some article from a blogster.
I want to see the official legal declaration that puts an end to "Jus soli" and prohibits a "Natural Born Citizen" of parents who are not citizens of this country, from running for president.
That she is, globalist girl needs to drop out before her poll numbers are embarrassing.
Got to her...
...or bought her.
Yup. Even after skipping through the stupid video, still my opinion as well.
...exactly as children of a foreign invader who gave birth in the United States would not be eligible for President.
It would be a strange situation where a parent is drafted back home to fight against the United States while at the same time their offspring claims the right to serve as U.S. President.
Nimrata Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Kamala Harris were all born to citizens of foreign countries. The U.S. had no claim for them to stay here if their parents wanted to leave.
I want to see the official legal declaration that puts an end to "Jus soli" and prohibits a "Natural Born Citizen" of parents who are not citizens of this country, from running for president.
Either put up or shut up, this "Natural Born Citizen" had been debated endlessly on this forum and you birthers have come up empty every time.....
Not wasting any more time on this crap........
Then dig it up and prove your point or shut up.
This crap has been brought up endlessly on this site and none of you idiots have been able to prove your argument other than to cite dumbass bloggers.
I'm done here, good night.........
You sound vaccinated.
Happersett v minor
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.[iv] (Emphasis added)
Happersett v minor
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.[iv] (Emphasis added)
Better yet, If you are so convinced she is not eligible to run, why haven't you or a posse' filed a lawsuit attempting to prohibit her to run due to your claim that she does not meet the "Natural Citizen" clause?
Meaningless crap, but nice try.
So tell me, why was she and Bobby Jindal allowed to run for office if your own interpretation of H v M was relevant?
Because Obama ran and no one said anything.
Closed your mind.
You refuse to see the truth
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.