"“If President Trump committed a heinous act worthy of disqualification, he should be disqualified for the sake of protecting our hallowed democratic system, regardless of whether citizens may wish to vote for him in Colorado,”
"“If President Trump committed a heinous act worthy of disqualification, he should be disqualified for the sake of protecting our hallowed democratic system, regardless of whether citizens may wish to vote for him in Colorado,”
But they were. The difference w/ Obama and Cruz was Trump.
Just because it wasn’t plastered all over the media (and it kind of was) has nothing to do with whether it was a big issue. They have to get their candidacy approved by numerous bodies, and meeting the minimum requirements (age and citizenship) is absolutely part of that.
The interpretation most use is this:
If you are born to an American parent, you are legally a US citizen unless you renounce, even if you don’t do the paperwork until later. That was true for McCain, Obama, and Cruz, and it’ll be true for the next candidate that runs, provided they were born to at least one American parent. That’s how the law has been consistently interpreted.
Natural born.
McCain wasn’t granted citizenship until a 1937 act of congress, and never had to produce a long-form birth certificate nor argue what “natural born” means in court.
The trouble Obama was given was racism, not the application of a “hard and fast” rule.
Yes, and natural born has been interpreted as being either born to a US citizen or born on US soil. One of those is sufficient.
By whom? Has it been tested?
Where are you getting the “hard and fast” descriptor when ‘natural born’ is not defined in the statute.
My second link (the Guardian) makes the claim, and my third link (Harvard Law Review, linked by the Guardian) provides one such piece of evidence to back that claim.
Almost nothing is “hard and fast” in law, especially where politics is involved, but given that we’ve had three high profile cases in the last 15 years and no serious Supreme Court-level challenge, I’m going to consider the “question” as mere political posturing.
Yes, the “natural born citizen” clause in a hard requirement in the Constitution, how that’s interpreted does have some room for debate. It seems you’re intentionally misunderstanding what I’m saying…
It seems you’re saying diametrically contradictory things.
You say things are absolutely hard and when soft edges are pointed out you then say “nothing is hard”.
I was talking about two distinct things, yet you conflate them.