So now you’re lecturing me about how the discussion began. Fine, but let’s keep the facts straight.
You posted to me:
‘1. He claims that the jus soli rule of citizenship was not the original Constitutional view’
To which I responded:
‘Excuse me, but you DO want to see Ted Cruz elected this next go round, if the Good Lord delays His coming...right?’
You say you’ve answered that question 3 xs.
I say you have yet to answer it once.
Guess who’s right?
& while you’re at it, point out where, in my first question on this thread that was actually directed to you, I mentioned ‘immigration.’ [& if I want to talk about immigration with another poster, what business is that of yours? The question I directed to you makes no mention of immigration. Try to be accurate & honest in your facts, for once.]
I was making the indisputable point that on January 24 I was here on this thread discussing Article II. It's a thread about "eligibility," after all. From the lead article: "The Constitution requires that for you to be eligible to be president, both of your parents must be naturally born citizens." What you call my "two citizen parent obsession" just happens to be the topic of this thread. Get a clue, for once.
Article II and what "natural born citizen" entails has been the topic of this thread I've been having -- with John Valentine, DL, AV, Freepersup -- i.e., everyone BUT you. You just buzz around like some little gnat pestering me with questions about this, that, or some other thing. If you want to join in on the thread topic, fine. But I'm through with chasing every little side question you can think to bring up while assiduously avoiding talking about the main topic at hand.
So, again:
If you figure out the answer to whether you agree with DL and the others who read Vattel into Article II or whether you agree with Mr. Robinson and me that such theory is a bunch of historical and Constitutional hooey, let me know.