“Since you will not or can not use the Constitution to support your position and are only resorting name calling , there is no further need for “debateâ€.”
There was no debate to begin with, because you demonstrated that you have no valid comprehension of the words being used, in particular “naturalization”, “natural”, and “natural law”. Now, here you are once again trying to use juvenile taunts, instead of acting like a responsible adult and making the effort to comprehend and use the actual and proper definitions for those terms. You are wasting an opportunity to have a useful discussion of the issue with someone who has extensive knowledge and experience from researching this subject over a period of decades. Instead, you are wasting everyone’s time with these juvenile playground taunts. As I said, come back when you can demonstrate the ability to hold up your end of the debate with something remotely resembling comprehension of the words and phrases used in the Constitution and legislative acts.
I called my Senators. I asked them where they stood on the question. I explained the question, cited the parts of the constitution, cited Rogers v. Bellei, and said I thought Cruz was not qualified. But, that said, I don't want to have the Senator reach the same conclusion I do, just because I do. My questions were, Is Cruz qualified? And if the issue is before Congress in the form of electoral votes, will the Senator acquiesce that Cruz is NBC, or will there be a challenge and debate? I asked for a letter, because I will be voting in the primary, and Cruz's eligibility, as viewed by Congress, is important to me.
If enough people do this, and the letters are made public, it facilitates resolving the issue before the people vote.