I’ve read convincing arguments that any number of individuals who are or were ineligible for the office of Vice President or President of the United States may have held the job or run for it. Why should this year’s exercise be any different?
Barry Soetoro may not have been the first birth blanket outrage, but he was not the last. We’ve had one since then. Kamala Harris has been identified as ineligible for the office she occupies.
In a 2020 Newsweek article, Eastman argued that Harris would only qualify as a constitutionally eligible natural-born citizen if her parents were “lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth.” However, in the case of Harris, if her parents were “merely temporary visitors,” then she patently did not qualify as a natural-born citizen pursuant to Article II, Section 1.
Harris’ ineligibility was no more of a deterrent than an obvious lack of qualification (for her or her boss), but since Barry O, the question of qualification tends to illicit outrage (how dare you!) in proportion to the amount of melanin in your skin, unless you are a Republican. Some have identified Vivek Ramaswamy as ineligible despite his darker tone, and Nikki Haley, whose status as a Republican is suspect to many, is having her citizenship qualifications questioned.
In Nikki Haley’s case, it is well documented that neither one of her parents were citizens, natural born or naturalized, at the time of her birth in 1972. It has been previously reported that a South Carolina-based newspaper included a quote from the Office of Nikki Haley, stating that “her parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth in 1972 and did not become citizens until 1978 and 2003.” Thus, although the parents may have been lawful residents at the time of her birth on South Carolina soil, which may or may not confer her with the privileges of citizenship, it is important to note that she does not qualify for the Constitution’s higher requirement of natural-born citizenship.
Haley is not my first choice, so I’ll be accused of being a bully or some such thing for bringing it up, but two facts are indisputable. First, the Constitution on this question has been ignored repeatedly, and second, the facts regarding natural born versus Birthright do not lean in Nikki’s favor. I’ll add one more because it may be the only point we can all agree on. Democrats will rediscover a devotion to originalism to undermine or challenge her legitimacy to run if nominated or, if she wins, to hold the office. This, therefore, suggests that we at least listen to the argument so we can intelligently make a case one way or the other.
A central concern for the architects of the nascent American republic was that only the most qualified statesmen be eligible for the country’s highest office. In his Commentaries, Joseph Story elaborated that “[i]t is indispensable… that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States… [T]he general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman.” Joseph Story, who enjoyed over a thirty-year reign as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, famously elaborated the principles of the republicanism of Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall well into the mid-nineteenth century. His Commentaries specifically distinguished between natural born and naturalized citizens, the latter of whom were ineligible to run for president, despite qualifying for the privileges of citizenship. This view is supported by the best legal commentary of the day, Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nature and of Nations, a contemporaneous authority for the Founding Fathers on questions of citizenship. de Vattel’s work states that “[t]he natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
I believe the Constitution is clear, but we’ve found ourselves saddled with a general ignorance or indifference that would make that matter. Neither of Haley’s parents was a citizen when she was born. She is eligible to be a citizen, but neither president nor vice president by this interpretation, and I’m sure it came up before she ran or since, and they’ve decided they can get around it.
Okay.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but getting around the Constitution’s limitation on the function and power of the general government is a leading concern among people who are more likely to vote in a Republican primary. Would it be too much to ask what other limitations of the document they are prepared to subvert or ignore?
Update: I made a few post-publication edits. ‘Melanin,’ not ‘melatonin,’ and instead of undermining a challenge to her legitimacy, we’ve changed it to undermine or challenge.
