Makes sense to me.
“In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definition the framer’s use, otherwise texts become like Play-Doh. They mean whatever you want them to mean to get the outcome you want,” she says.
This is what politicians do all the time. How do you think abortion became legal?
How do you think the framers meant this:
The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.?
“How do you think abortion became legal?”
You won’t find a “right to privacy” or “penumbra” used to legitimize infanticide mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The Supremes made it up.
Unfortunately for the foreign-born, the terms “natural born citizen” and “citizen” are used in Article 2, Section 1, clause 5.
It’s right there.
You will probably find the following to be at least pedantic or even overbearing, but at this point, I don’t care.
Those of us `birthers’ who fought Obama’s eligibility see the actions of those here who objected to Obama based upon his origins (even though he claims to be born in Hawaii, while Cruz admits foreign birth) who are now quibbling and puling over the plain wording of the Constitution, to be `special pleading’.
Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking himself (or those he has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.
This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumstance(s) C.
Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
Therefore A is exempt from S.
After thousands of `discussions’ here on FR on the subject it has reached the point where many of us don’t see those who refuse to read Article 2, section 1, clause 5 and give it a literal reading—particularly when considering that their hero is a Constitutional “originalist”—as simply wrong or mistaken, but unreasonable.
The ignorant, and even the stupid can be taught, but unreasonable people are hopeless.
This needless controversy generated by Cruz and possibly Rubio (the “foam party” muchacho) as well will be resolved soon by the electorate. Then maybe the GOP-e serial posters and others who will not see will fade back into the woodwork.