Twice now the voters and the electors found Obama to be qualified. As it is their job under the Constitution to select our presidents, it is their job to either determine whether candidates are in compliance with constitutional qualifications. In both of the last two elections, the "birther" issues were widely debated and a decision was made.
So, either the voters and the electors rejected your definition of the term "natural born citizen" or the they determined that Obama's father was someone who was an American citizen. I think the former more likely than the latter.
If Mr. Cruz runs, the voters and their electors will consider his qualifications to be president. If you feel he fails to meet the constitutional qualifications, then let the voters know about your feelings before they perform their duty.
In approximately 57 straight presidential elections, the voters and the electors have performed their constitutional function without any extra-constitutional interference by any Supreme Court attempts to reject a candidate's qualifications. The voters and their electors will continue to decide these questions and select our presidents per the Constitution.
Not at all. This is an example of circular logic and an unsupported assumption. The act of electing him doesn't make him Constitutiionally eligible. Plenty of people who voted for him don't know his background, don't understand how the SCOTUS decisions make him ineligible, and an alarming number who voted for him just don't care if he meets the Constitutional requirements. The electors exercise a partisan function, so there's no inherent assumption they will be honest or respect the Constitution.
As it is their job under the Constitution to select our presidents, it is their job to either determine whether candidates are in compliance with constitutional qualifications.
Where does it specifiy that voters have a job to make sure candidates are in compliance?? Let's see a direct quote form the Constitution.
In both of the last two elections, the "birther" issues were widely debated and a decision was made.
The so-called "birther" issues were not debated honestly or fully. Procedural hurdles have been used to prevent voters from getting a legitimate and unfettered examination of Obama's credentials.
So, either the voters and the electors rejected your definition of the term "natural born citizen" or the they determined that Obama's father was someone who was an American citizen. I think the former more likely than the latter.
Sorry, but this is a meaningless assumption. A concensus in support of an error doesn't make the error correct. And who would have determined that Obma's father was an American citizen?? This is outright nonsense.
If Mr. Cruz runs, the voters and their electors will consider his qualifications to be president. If you feel he fails to meet the constitutional qualifications, then let the voters know about your feelings before they perform their duty.
That's what we're doing right now. The Supreme Court gave a clear and exclusive definition for anyone honest enough to comprehend and respect it: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
In approximately 57 straight presidential elections, the voters and the electors have performed their constitutional function without any extra-constitutional interference by any Supreme Court attempts to reject a candidate's qualifications.
More circular logic. It hasn't been necessary until Obama was errantly elected.
The voters and their electors will continue to decide these questions and select our presidents per the Constitution.
... or not. Obama was NOT selected per the Constitution.