Replies

Again, moot point. If Barack Hussein Mohammad Obama, Junior can serve two terms as chief magistrate, then Ted Cruz, Chester Arthur, John McCain and any number of other people are therefore qualified to be president. You can’t say “well, this man is a Democrat and partially black, and making history, therefore we won’t say anything, but now along comes a man that we don’t like, so therefore the gate must be closed again.” Nope, the gate is ajar and the hinges are broken off. It is clear to anyone with an IQ above 60 that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii; he has said so, his grandmother said so, the Kenyan government has said so and so has his publisher and press agent. He was born in Kenya, which is just as much a foreign country as Canada is. The horses are out of the barn. I don’t want to hear any more bull$#*+ about Ted Cruz not qualifying. That ship sailed in 2008.

Starting with a side point:

"It is clear to anyone with an IQ above 60 that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii..."

So maybe I don't have an IQ above 60, but for what it's worth I think there are a lot of birth certificate doubters and eligibility doubters who, like me, are guessing something is definitely significantly awry with with Obama's identifying documents and/or birth narrative but who, again like me, don't feel convinced he was born in Kenya.

On to the bigger issue:

"Again moot point."

This I think is a fair position, and I think you have justified it decently (not that my conclusion matters given my astonishingly low IQ). I had gathered that your interest in the debate was about how best to interpret the meaning of the constitution from a strict constructionist perspective. It was on that point that I was attempting debate, but on this point of mootness I must admit, to me it seems you are quite right.

Regardless of what historical evidence does or doesn't tell us about the Framers' intentions, it would appear the sitting supreme court has weighed in with its conclusion implicitly through inaction and silence regarding Obama's disposition. The idealist in me is hesitant to see Republicans as pushing still further the definition of natural born citizen that is in my view less attested, so I have been reluctant to join the Ted Cruz club, but at some point I may.

My kids think me hypocritical for suggesting I could support Cruz when for so long I have argued that even if Obama is telling the truth about his birth circumstances he is still probably not what the founders meant by natural born citizen. I explain myself by asking them to consider an umpire behind the plate who calls "ball high" for pitches thrown between the waistline and the letters. If the rulebook says the strike zone goes from the knees all the way up to the letters I might argue with him the first time he grants a walk to an opposing batter on a "ball high" that was well below the letters. Nevertheless if he should remain stonefaced and consistent, I would certainly instruct my batters to not swing at tough pitches that are above their waists so that the opposing pitchers are burdened to stay within the same small strike zone imposed upon my pitchers.

The point of course is that the Nine Black Riders seated in our highest court are analogous to the umpire in that they are for all practical purposes the duly vested authorities whether I like it or not. So if the Dems are going to leverage a wider definition of natural born and bear no negative consequences, it only seems reasonable the the Republicans should be afforded the same latitude. When do two wrongs make a right? When the Supreme Court says (explicitly or tacitly) that neither of the wrongs were wrong at all.

If I could have my wish it would be instead that SCOTUS finally show some courageous responsibility and take a case regarding Obama's eligibility in which they would articulate once and for all how it is those 3 words in Article II must be interpreted, but it looks like that's just not going to happen.

So yes, I'll concede. My argument about the Framers' intentions is apparently moot, thanks to the silent Supremes. All the best to Ted Cruz and his supporters. For now I'm content to stick with the outsider who grew up in the Detroit ghetto, but in Senator Cruz there is definitely much to be admired.

I agree with you that that is how it *OUGHT* to work, but I have long noted that they always apply a different set of rules to Democrats than they do to Republicans, and the Republicans must always be made to endure far more challenges than do the Democrats.

I dare say that if Cruz secures the nomination, the Democrats and the Media (but I repeat myself) will launch an all out smear campaign challenging his eligibility. Even if he succeeds in court, there is a good chance they will do so much damage to him in the court of public opinion that he might not be able to recover from it.

For nearly the last decade we have heard that the only requirement for being a "natural citizen" is to be born in the country. There is a chance that most of the public, after hearing this so many times, will actually believe it, and therefore vote on it. I can assure you that the media will do everything of which they can think to make this the end result.

It is clear to anyone with an IQ above 60 that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii; he has said so, his grandmother said so, the Kenyan government has said so and so has his publisher and press agent. He was born in Kenya, which is just as much a foreign country as Canada is. The horses are out of the barn. I don’t want to hear any more bull$#*+ about Ted Cruz not qualifying. That ship sailed in 2008.

If they can let Obama get away with his bullsh*t dual citizenship, then there ought to be no bar to anyone else getting away with it. However I expect court challenges to Cruz if he wins the nomination, and the media will play it up these court challenges as his having "questionable citizenship." They will deliberately cast doubt in the public mind, and that will have a negative impact on his ability to garner votes.

Do not doubt for a minute that they will do this.