Harris and Gabbard not constitutionally qualified to be president [or vice president.] - Not "Natural Born Citizens" | By Larry Klayman | July 12, 2019 | renewamerica.com

the Constitution clearly recognizes that not all citizens are eligible to be president [or vice president]

Treatises of the time explained the concept: "The natural born, or native is one who is born in the country, of citizen parents." Morse, Alexander Peter, A Treatise on Citizenship pp. xi (1881). "Under the view of the law of nations, natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Id. at §7

[Parents = plural, i.e. both citizens -- not singular, i.e. a citizen parent.]

Citizens who are ineligible for those offices could still qualify for other high offices here, such as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense -- unless they would be unable to properly perform those duties in accordance with their oath of office to uphold the Constitution, due to personal commitments of politicized ideologies and other loyalties in conflict with it.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard - Wikipedia

She was a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2013 to 2016, ... Gabbard resigned as DNC vice chair on February 28, 2016, in order to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders [Note: a Socialist/Communist] for the nomination. She was the first congresswoman to endorse Sanders and later gave the nominating speech putting his name forward at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.

Gabbard was assigned as Bernie Sanders's running mate in California for any write-in votes for Sanders. Shortly after the election, Gabbard was mentioned as a possible presidential candidate for 2020. ... Gabbard's domestic policy platform in her campaign for the 2020 Democratic nomination is economically and socially progressive and has been described as "similar to Bernie Sanders ... in many respects".

Just as Ted Cruz is not qualified either.

Right. This is an alphabetical listing of Natural Born Citizen eligibility challenges from 4 sources:

Chester A. Arthur

Ted Cruz

Charles Curtis

Tulsi Gabbard

Barry Goldwater

Al Gore

Nikki Haley

Kamala Harris

Charles Evans Hughes

Bobby Jindal

John McCain

Barack Obama

George Romney

Marco Rubio

Rick Santorum

Christopher Schurmann

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Lowell Weicker

[Refs. | Wikipedia (1800s, 1900s and 2000s) | research.omicsgroup.org | wordpress.com | blogspot.com]

Rick Santorum's NBC eligibility issues highlight the matter of dual and multi-citizenships being antithetical to our
Founders' intent that Presidents of the United States would have sole allegiance and citizenship obligations to the
United States only.

eligibility issues highlight the matter of dual and multi-citizenships

Of course this would disqualify anyone who holds a preference to Judaism since all Jews who have U.S. citizenship also have Israeli citizenship. Even though American Jews may not look at Israel as their homeland, they could go there at any time and be completely welcome. ;)

Thanks for that research.

You're welcome. : )

Am archiving this article by Leo Donofrio on the Natural Born Citizen eligibility issue, which was mentioned in the comment
section at the blogspot.com source. Excerpt:

the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by
virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is;
citizen parents.

the “natural born Citizen” clause must begin from the starting point that it requires something more than citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), tells you exactly what that something is; citizen parents.

And that is the bottom line truth of it all: citizen parents! for crying out loud.

Of course this would disqualify anyone who holds a preference to Judaism since all Jews who have U.S. citizenship
also have Israeli citizenship.

Well, they wouldn't be disqualified because of their religion. They'd be disqualified because of Israel's citizenship
attachment policy.

And that is the bottom line truth of it all: citizen parents! for crying out loud.

Globalists have long been trying to internationalize America's Presidential office. They expect that children born here
to parents with foreign citizenship(s) should acquire those citizenships and U.S. citizenship as their birthrights, then still
be eligible to become America's President or Vice President. Not so.

America's early laws of birthright citizenship (iirc) were such that an unwed American mother couldn't even pass
American citizenship to her child born here, much less anywhere else. I think an unwed American mother still has to
have lived here continuously for a year to be able to give American citizenship by birth to her child if born outside of
America. Compare to unconditional, instantaneous citizenship for children born here to illegal aliens. 14th Amendment
Birthright Citizenship is what that's called but the 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional. [4um Ref.]

Well, they wouldn't be disqualified because of their religion. They'd be disqualified because of Israel's citizenship attachment policy.

Right that would be dual citizenship. We do not need dual loyalists here. ;)

dual citizenship. We do not need dual loyalists here. ;)

Re: A child born to an American parent or both parents Americans but the child was born outside of the United States
-- that child might automatically acquire a dual-citizenship by their birth in a foreign nation [Britain, for an historical
example], regardless of whether they'd later prefer that hadn't happened. And they would probably have that foreign
citizenship applied to them before they even officially become an American citizen through the U.S. naturalization
procedures; verification which I think is required for all children born to Americans but outside of America to legally be
U.S. citizens. No auto-birthright U.S. citizenship by parentage for them, whether or not their parents are both Americans
and married to each other. In fact, it's even more complicated for an unwed American father to claim American
citizenship for their child if born outside of America than it is for an unwed American mother to do that. Unless I've
misunderstood something, American men drafted into war overseas at 18 would not be able to claim American
citizenship qualification by parentage for a child they fathered abroad and out of wedlock because the law requires that
unwed American fathers must have lived in America continuously for 5 years until they are 19. I should have been
clearer about all of that at Post #13 but was rushing because there seems to be less editing time here since the upgrades
than I thought.

but was rushing because there seems to be less editing time here since the upgrades than I thought.

Maybe Neil can tell us more about that. ;)

Donald Trump got more votes from black Americans than any Republican candidate in decades.

The blacks were saying they had Obama for 8 years and he did nothing for them. ;)

Me: was rushing because there seems to be less editing time here since the upgrades than I thought.

BTP Holdings: Maybe Neil can tell us more about that. ;)

Pinguinite: I went though the settings not long ago and may have reduced the time.

Dakmar: It looks like it is 2 hours to edit a reply since time of post. It seems like it has always been 2 hours.

It seems to me, Dak, that it used to be more in the range of 5-8 hours but we could both be wrong because there was,
afterall, that time warp problem with the timestamps of postings after the first upgrade, which might still be sporadically
altering our perceptions of cyberspace-time.

If you wouldn't mind upping the edit time of the settings, Pinguinite, to allow for 5-8 hours, that would be very nice and
greatly appreciated, by me anyway.

Thanks, BTP, for flagging him here about that.

Edit Comment

Note: You have 3 hours and 59 minutes to save changes to this comment.

Many thanks, Pinguinite, for the 2 extra hours -- and so quickly, too. : )

altering our perceptions of cyberspace-time.

Thanks, BTP, for flagging him here about that.

Not a problem. And do you recall the Y2K scare back when the cyberspace date rolled over to 2000? That was a doozy, wasn't it? ;)

And do you recall the Y2K scare back when the cyberspace date rolled over to 2000? That was a doozy,
wasn't it? ;)

I'd rather not discuss that right now with the cyberspace-time situation here being so variable lately.

I'd rather not discuss that right now with the cyberspace-time situation here being so variable lately.

I understand your apprehension. ;)