He was elected twice so ineligible.
Because he is an NBC through his mother’s citizenship.
Second time this week I’ve seen a poster that thinks born outside of the US = ineligible.
But…that rule did not exist when he was president.
The constitution forbids ex post facto laws so we can’t hold Lincoln to that I don’t think.
That prevents a person from being punished for violating a law that wasn’t enacted until after the infraction occurred. It doesn’t mean you are immune to laws because you were alive before they were written.
I can’t think of a Republican I’d pick. Now, to be fair, I’m not saying that they are all equally loathsome. In fact, given how many of them there are, there might actually be one who would do a good job. It’s a matter of statistics. I am not just knowledgeable enough to come up with one, that’s all.
There’s a thread here on that. It is pretty well agreed that term limits applies to everyone but Truman.
Also, for ex post facto, refer to Hollingsworth v. Virginia. And wouldn’t it implicitly nullify earlier parts of the Constitution impeding its enactment? For example if there were a Constitutional Amendment saying everyone wearing a red hat on 1/6/2021 was guilty of insurrection, wouldn’t by necessity the rule against ex post facto laws and bill of attainder have to be nullified when enforcing that specific amendment?
If there is a thread on this I’d be interested in a link (I believe you…I am genuinely interested).
As for the rest, that is definitely a hijack if I continued it and IANAL and this is not a hill I will fight for. My comment was half-hearted considering I was nominating a dead man (and, considering the flip in policy in the 50s-60s is really a democrat by today’s standards and republicans would not vote for him).
Hey, sometimes we need to have fun on a P&E thread.
But here is the point. Nothing stops a 5yo from Andorra from running for president… or any other office. The Courts have sometimes taken the position that the voters get to choose, and not be eligible means less votes.
Can’t disagree.
But if we add to the criteria that they that they are a truly loyal Republican – maybe John Roberts.
Nelson Rockefeller.
Romney, or Christie from who is running.
Seeing as how “natural born citizen” has never been defined, I don’t think it’s unreasonable, especially as Constitutional Originalist Ted Cruz seems to support a narrow, literal definition of the Constitution except when it comes to the natural born citizen clause. Most people would agree he is a natural born citizen through his mother, but not all.
As a retired public employee from New Jersey I have a lot of reasons to hate Christie. And I do. I still think he’s the best of the bunch. He’s not afraid to go against the Republican line when he needs to. After Sandy he worked directly with Obama and in public. He’s going after Trump without apologies or fear of the consequences with the hardcore. By necessity he had to work with democrats while he was governor.
I am no fan of Christie but I think you are correct he is the best of what is on offer today from the republican party.
That should worry everyone.
Does it have to be an actual Republican politican that has already been elected to some office, or just someone registered as a Republican? Cause if the latter, I’m sure there’s people out there who are registered Republican, and not quite that horrible. Find one of them who’s 35, and I pick that one.
Even just going from elected Republicans, there might be one somewhere elected to some small local office as a Republican that manages to not be horrible.
Ooh, or maybe a Republican that’s been in a coma for 30 years. Somebody who was Republican in Bush the Elder’s time isn’t automatically a horrible person!
We could then be sure that the leader of the free world is watching the climate catastrophe take place with appropriate concern.
(I’m mocking her, not you for choosing her. I agree she’s one of the least bad.)
I think for the choice to be “meaningful” (insomuch as any hypothetical is meaningful), it’s probably best to stick to the current primary contestants as the OP prefers.
I’d probably go with the consensus and stick with Christie among that sad bunch and for the reasons already articulated. It’s very much a “vote for the crook, it’s important” meme moment.
I think it is worth noting that, not counting dead republicans who might have been actually ok…maybe, I cannot think of any democrat worse than the republicans listed as actual possibilities in this thread. I am sure if we dig there may be some worse democrats but they are light years from running for president.
(this is not to say democrats are saints and without faults)
Nicole Wallace
Well, the recently indicted Menendez looks pretty bearish. If Tulsi Gabbard were still a Democrat, I might actually prefer Christie over her. Most socially conservative Democrat (when she was one) with a national profile I can think of in quite awhile. Also IMHO kind of a loon.
There is likely another corrupt whacko or two I’m blanking on. Hey, is Rod Blagojevich still a Democrat 
?
Nikki Haley. She did a good job as governor, and an excellent job as UN ambassador. She’s also the one most likely to turn the political temperature down, and we really need that.
I wanted to like Vivek, but he disqualified himself with his silly positions on Ukraine and Taiwan (wants to stop support of Ukraine, and bail on Taiwan as soon as we decouple chip making from them). Putting a clock on the defense of Taiwan is a ridiculous thing to do, as is immediately abandoning Ukraine.
Christie is okay, but he’s not remotely electable. Too much of a pugilist. DeSantis was interesting, but signing a 6-week abortion bill was both wrong and politically stupid after he had already gotten a more reasonable restriction. And since then, he’s done very little to make up for that in my mind.