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.
‘You just buzz around like some little gnat pestering me with questions about this, that, or some other thing.’
You posted to me first. Here is what you posted:
‘‘1. He claims that the jus soli rule of citizenship was not the original Constitutional view’’
To which I asked the entirely pertinent question of where that statement puts you with respect to Cruz. I.e.: do you want to see him elected or not?
Since you claim to have already answered three times, and since it’s a simple yes or no question, it should be no trouble for you to clarify your answer.
I.e.: IF you previously answered this question, it was a muddled, indecipherable mess. So by all means clarify your position: would you like to see Cruz elected in ‘16?