Biden goes over the top praising Kamala Harris: 'I love you'

I don’t believe there are any serious questions as to Harris’s eligibility. Unserious ones, sure, but I’ve learned to ignore them.

Not saying Harris wasn’t born in the U.S. But her legal status with respect to being president is both questionable and a serious issue. It’s so serious that self-serving liberals go to great lengths to cloud the issue and obfuscate the eligibility criteria. Despite what the liberal media tells people, being born here of an in itself does not necessarily qualify one to be president.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution requires that only a natural born citizen can serve as president. Do you understand the difference between a “natural born citizen” and someone who is simply born in the U.S.? Much has been written and adjudicated about this matter so there’s plenty of substantiation for the requirement.

Do you know what her parents’ legal status was at the time she was born? It’s a matter of some Constitutional import that you should look into.

You may disagree but, questions of competence aside, many in this country believe it is important that someone occupying the highest office in the land be free of questionable loyalties, foreign sympathies, and deceitful behavior. Otherwise we will wind up with more petulant people like Barack Obama.

It is an unserious argument because it is circle jerk for a particular subset of self-righteous conservatives who refuse to recognize reality.

It does not matter if the natural born citizen argument is correct as an abstract theory because it is a lost argument. The left doesn't buy it, independents don't buy it, and lots of conservatives don't buy it either. And Obama already served 8 years despite that argument. You have ZERO chance of prevailing.

I'm a conservative lawyer. I did my research, read all the arguments, and I don't buy it either. I admit that it is a gray area, but there is a huge difference between something that is unambiguously correct, and something upon which reasonable people can disagree.

Those who keep pushing the NBC argument are like people who kept a Betamax player because it was "better" than VHS. At some point, you have to move on from an unsuccessful argument or you be become an unserious person shaking you fist because reality doesn't fit your vision.

I did respond. The "natural born citizen" argument - regardless of its legal merits - is over. It is a dead legal/constitutional issue, like relitigating Marbury v. Madison. There is no chance that a challenge to a candidacy based upon the theory that a person must both be born here and have citizen parents will succeed. None. Zero.

Not sure what is unclear or evasive about that.

“You may disagree but, questions of competence aside, many in this country believe it is important that someone occupying the highest office in the land be free of questionable loyalties, foreign sympathies, and deceitful behavior. Otherwise we will wind up with more petulant people like Barack Obama. “

as you say, “there may be many...,” but there aren’t enough “many” to make any difference as to whether the candidate is constitutionally eligible to be president or not. certainly not enough many on our supreme court who would show disfavor to a demoncrat nominee.

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.