‘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?
OK, I will grant that given the question posed by the original article to this thread, the way I phrased that was deficient. Better to have said:
"He claims (agreeing with the article) that the original intent of "natural born citizen" required citizen parents."
To that claim I say "No." (The site owner here also says "No.")
Other posters (AV, John Valentine, Freepersup) seem to say "Yes.'
So those I've interacted with have addressed the thread topic either "Yes" or "No." That's the question: does the Constitution require that to be President a person be born to citizen parents? The thread isn't taking a straw poll of still largely undeclared candidates.
So on the thread topic, everyone has weighed in. Except you.
So I keep asking: "Do you agree with DL and the others who read Vattel into Article II or do you agree with Mr. Robinson and me that such theory is a bunch of historical and Constitutional hooey?" That's the keep-on-topic question.