Is AOC Eligible to the Presidency?


by Sharon Rondeau

By US House Office of Photography –, Public Domain,

(Dec. 30, 2019) — A Politico article dated December 27, 2019 suggests that enthusiasm and speculation are building for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY14) to seek the presidency at some point in the future; however, whether or not she is constitutionally eligible is not discussed therein.

According to her Wikipedia biography, Ocasio-Cortez was born on October 13, 1989 and is therefore 30 years old as of this writing. Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president and commander-in-chief to be a minimum of 35 years of age. Therefore, expressed interest, as reported by Politico, for the freshman Congresswoman’s hypothetical 2020 run as she campaigns for Bernie Sanders is misplaced given that in January 2020, when an inauguration will take place, she will remain four years short of that requirement.

The same clause requires the president to be a “natural born Citizen” and to have resided in the United States for at least 14 years.  While not precisely defined by the framers, the term is believed to mean, at a minimum, “born in the United States.” Some legal scholars and constitutional attorneys go farther, stating that the term necessitates two generations of United States allegiance, meaning that when the presidential candidate was born, his or her parents were at that instant U.S. citizens, either by naturalization or their own birth circumstances.

Wikipedia states that Ocasio-Cortez’s father was “born in the Bronx to a Puerto Rican family” and her mother “born in Puerto Rico,” citing The New York Times, which cited The Intercept.  By congressional statute passed in 1940, all persons born in Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens, although the island community remains a U.S. territory and not a state.

Looking for all of your news in one place?  Try Whatfinger, your one-stop aggregator of news, opinion and everything else.


14 Responses to "Is AOC Eligible to the Presidency?"

  1. Robert Laity   Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 3:50 AM

    In any event, AOC is currently considered by law to be a person, regardless of whether or not she would have been considered one in 1787. She will meet all the criteria in Article II to be President at such time she becomes 35 years old. That’s roughly, a few days before the election in 2024.

  2. Robert Laity   Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 3:40 AM

    Glen, The word “Person” is used in Article II and no one would disagree that a woman IS a Person. “No person except a natural born citizen….shall be eligible to the office of president…”
    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff Virginia Minor (Minor v Happersett) was indeed a “Natural Born Citizen”. Indeed, they unanimously defined that term of art which all we “Birthers” use. An NBC is one born in the United States to Parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves. I am of the impression that although Virginia Minor could not vote, she certainly could have been President under the wording used. She was after all, as I said, a person.

  3. Robert Laity   Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 3:23 AM

    Given that a President MUST have parents who are both U.S. Citizens AND be born IN the United States (and not a territory, unless that territory is fully incorporated), AOC is eligible to be President when she reaches the age of 35. AOC was born IN the United States (NYC) to parents who were both U.S. Citizens. Interestingly noteworthy is that, had she been born in Puerto Rico to the same two parents, she would NOT be eligible. Puerto Rico is NOT a fully incorporated territory and is therefore NOT “IN” the United States of America. Neither is American Samoa, The Virgin Islands, Guam, or any other current territories EXCEPT Palmyra Atol. Palmyra Atol in the Pacific is the SOLE fully incorporated territory of the USA currently. Anyone born on Palmyra Atol to two U.S. Citizen parents IS a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

  4. Ralph E Wall,Sr   Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 3:13 PM


  5. Screwtape Letters   Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 11:05 AM

    It just depends on how much money SoroSatan is willing to spend on the bestest government that money can buy.

  6. James Carter   Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 9:45 AM

    No person who proffers ideas, policies, etc., etc. which are antithetical to the U.S. Constitution should be eligible for any public office, much less the Presidency.

  7. Don   Monday, December 30, 2019 at 11:32 PM

    I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m hoping she will be a bartender again after November 2020. She doesn’t have both oars in the water.

  8. D3F1ANT   Monday, December 30, 2019 at 10:38 PM

    Nobody will elect her again. She was a fluke. even the Reds who voted for her won’t do that again.

  9. D3F1ANT   Monday, December 30, 2019 at 10:35 PM

    She’ll be a bad memory by 2024.

  10. capt45   Monday, December 30, 2019 at 9:36 PM

    She should be, after all, they won’t even have to provide a phony Birth Cert.

  11. torreon   Monday, December 30, 2019 at 6:24 PM

    Congress should create an amendment for being sound of mind I’m certain she would be left out.

  12. Glen Day   Monday, December 30, 2019 at 10:53 AM

    Women have served the nation in congress, the courts and other public offices for decades. But may a woman run for and hold the office of President of the United States?
    Most people would say “yes”, a woman may run for and be president just like a man. Haven’t women run for president in the past? The question is ridiculous. But there is a constitutional question regarding a women’s eligibility that hasn’t been addressed. For whatever reason, no one has ever raised the issue. That issue is the language used in Article II of the Constitution.

    The United States Constitution is written in gender-neutral language. The one exception is found in Article II of the document, which uses male-specific pronouns when describing the office and duties of the president. Does this mean or imply that only a man may be president of the United States? That is the question that needs clarification.

    Article II of the U.S. Constitution created the executive branch of government, consisting of the president, vice president, and other executive officers.

    The writers of the Constitution used male-specific language when describing the position and duties of the president. Not once did they use female-specific language. There are 19 references (20 if the one in the 25th Amendment is counted) regarding the president using the male pronouns of “he” and “his” in Article II. There are no famine references at all.

    Some would argue the use of the male pronouns “he” and “his” were not meant to be exclusive to men. It is common in English to use male gender language such as “man” or “mankind” when referring to humanity in general. But the founders weren’t referring to humanity in general they were referring to one person; the president and they used those male pronouns not once or twice but 19 times.

    The Constitution does not directly state the president must be a man or that a woman shall not be president, but history and those male pronouns in Article II clearly imply just that.

    The founders were 18th century men with 18th century worldviews. Those views were that women had no place in political matters. The Constitution was created by land owning white men, primarily for the economic, political and legal benefit of those men. The Constitutional Convention was made up of 55 white men from the 13 states. Women were not involved in the creation of the document. There is no record of any discussions concerning women, their rights, or duties during the Constitutional Convention.

    During the early years of United States, women were at best second-class citizens. Women were considered dependent, subservient, and unequal. The tenet of “coverture” existed and meant a married woman was not a person under the law. Her legal being was bound to that of her husband. Husband and wife were legally one entity and the husband was the foremost member of that union. The wife’s separate legal existence just disappeared. It was referred to as “legal death.” Wives couldn’t control their property unless specific provisions were made before marriage. They couldn’t file lawsuits or be sued separately from their husband. They couldn’t enter into or execute contracts without the involvement of their husband. Husbands were responsible for all aspects of their wife including discipline. Husbands could legally beat their wives. If a woman ran away from her husband and home, she would be considered a thief for stealing the clothes on her back. Women couldn’t vote in most states and couldn’t hold public office. Husbands were required to provide food, shelter and clothing for their wives. He also became responsible for any debts she acquired prior to the marriage.
    Single women had it a little better. They could live where they chose, work at jobs not requiring a license or college degree (those jobs belonged to men), enter into contracts, sue and be sued and own property.

    Women were not required (or allowed) to perform the responsibilities required of men such as military service, jury duty, court testimony and posse comitatus.

    Married women needed permission from their husbands to do just about anything in the public domain. The “Cult of True Womanhood” was in effect, a belief that women were to be pious, submissive wives and caring mothers, baring lots of children (important because children often died young in those days) and be concerned only with home and family.
    Given the social norms and conditions of that time, a woman as president and commander-in-chief of the military was out of the question, impossible, beyond comprehension.

    Any man who suggested such a thing could be ridiculed and ridden out of town on a rail. Women needed the care and protection of men. They were physically and emotionally delicate and much too weak to manage such a position. Besides, who will care for the children and household? Politics, managing a country and war were the purview of men, not women. These views continued into 19th and 20th centuries and to some degree even to today.

    It wasn’t until 1916 that a woman was able to serve in an elected position in the federal government. Jeannette Rankin, a Republican, from Montana (a state that permitted women’s suffrage), was the first woman elected to the House of Representatives. That was 127 years after the Constitution was ratified.

    Prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment, voting rights for women (and men) were a state issue. Some states allowed women to vote most didn’t. All states allowed men to vote.
    The 19th Amendment is one sentence long and states:

    “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

    This Amendment came about because of the lawsuit of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), the United States Supreme Court ruled that Mrs. Minor did not have a federal constitutional right to vote. The Court upheld a Missouri Court decision that refused to register a woman, Virginia Minor, as a voter because Missouri law allowed only men to vote. Mrs. Minor’s husband filed the lawsuit on her behalf, as the law forbids her, as a married woman, to file it herself.

  13. Nikita's_UN_Shoe   Monday, December 30, 2019 at 10:24 AM

    AOC (Arrogant Obnoxious Communist)
    Her best attributes.

  14. Lloyd Carter   Monday, December 30, 2019 at 10:19 AM

    Running and elect-ability are two different things. Hopefully the American electorate will not be dumbed down enough to allow that to happen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.