If her father was still a British royal subject at the time of her birth then she does not qualify.
To think otherwise is to admit that the founding fathers meant to allow the child of king George himself to be president. Which is lunacy.
You people do not want to get it. If the Democrat is black and/or female, they CANNOT BE CHALLENGED. You are a white privileged RACISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.
Have a look at the image. It is verifiable via ancestry.com
(The name and birthdate have been verified via other documents connected to the Harris family).
Can someone locate Donald Harris’ “alien file” with the USCIS, or his British passport file?
Obama was born a British subject and all of our elected and appointed clapped like trained seals.
The GOP needs to grow a set and fight the destruction of the Constitution.
Doesn't matter. The founders didn't write the 14th Amendment.
You do realize then that (according to your definition) that Martin Van Buren would have been ineligible, right? After all, his parents were both British subjects and were not "natural citizens." Chester A. Arthur's dad was born in Ireland. Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in England.
Do you REALLY think that the founding fathers had this in mind: A GI, stationed overseas in WW II, meets a gal in England, falls in love and moves back to the states, has a boy and that boy can never be president? Or for that matter...mom and dad are on a PCS to Kadina and have a kid and because that kid was born there, he can never be president?
No. False.
Was Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore and Pierce eligible? Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 only governs who can be president...not who their parents can be and it doesn't make all people of the colonies natural born...just citizens. So, by this definition, every president on the list was ineligible. So, by my count, we've had EIGHT presidents who were president who did not fit the definition. EIGHT. Funny how none of the founding fathers (who knew the definition better than you or I) got their hair in a lather about it.