The knives have come out (again) for my old law professor John Eastman for his piece setting up the legal analysis concerning the Natural Born Citizen Clause and Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris. There was much heavy breathing about it on my Facebook feed; I hope they were wearing masks.
The overwhelming response to the constitutional argument? Racist. Obviously. It has never been considered a valid argument. So what else could it be? When has the Natural Born Citizen Clause ever been used against a white candidate?
"The family's frequent moves later spawned accusations that Chester Arthur was not a native-born citizen of the United States. ... Had that been true, opponents might have argued that Arthur was constitutionally ineligible for the vice presidency under the United States Constitution's natural-born-citizen clause.".
We might find our history more interesting if we didn't find it merely racist.