Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since no person except a natural born citizen is eligible to hold the Office of President then what difference does it make if the VP isn't one either?
Art. II, Sec. 1 No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
12th Amendment
But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Sorry, but if you don't like the selection they made for President, then your really not going to like the selection she is going to make for Vice President.
20th Amendment
Sec. 3 If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President.
25th Amendment
Sec. 2 Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Since no person except a natural born citizen is eligible to hold the Office of President then what difference does it make if the VP isn't one either?
Let's just say Biden is the new Floyd.
I have NO idea what you're talking about. You know that Kamala Harris was born in California, right?
Then Harris becomes President. If it went from President to First Lady, then you'd have an issues as Ivanka is a naturalized citizen and not eligible to be President/VP.
Yes, I understand that. Your post implies without stating explicitly that Kamala Harris was not born in the U.S. Or am I misinterpreting the post? As I said it's implied so Imay be wrong. But that is what led to my question about Birtherism. If I am wrong if you coukd clarify a bit what your post is saying it woukd be appreciated.
I have NO idea what you're talking about. You know that Kamala Harris was born in California, right?
That makes her a citizen of the United States if one accepts the Civil Rights Act of 1866 still being valid law, having never been repealed.
But the issue is natural born citizen. Art 2 Sec. 1 is that no person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to hold the Office of President. You do know the honorable Kamala Harris was born in 1964 and not 1789.
If you are born in the USA and your father is a citizen of another country, then YOU have dual citizenship! Yikes! A president/vp can't have that!
Not to mention her parents were here on temporary VISAs!! And were not registered as permanent resident aliens of the USA when Kamala was born in 1964 in California!
Neither of her parents were U.S. Citizens then!
You bolded "natural born citizen" so that must be relevant to whatever point you're trying to make. That term is not defined by the constitution or even the supreme court. What is your point?
Naturally born has a far different meaning and circumstance than a naturalized citizen.
Has to do with the Parents birthplace.
We have only had one President, that a parent was not born in the "New World"
In the very beginning, they knew foreign influence would be tried in our government and they did everything possible to prevent it. One was the allegiance of the parents of the President.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.