No, it FLAT OUT ISN'T.
In the crystal-clear words of EARLY LEGAL EXPERT William Rawle, who was a member, together with GEORGE WASHINGTON, of the "Society for Political Inquiries," which met AT BENJAMIN FRANKLIN'S HOUSE:
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
Birthers who claim otherwise are spitting in the face of William Rawle and the Founders and Framers that he was friends with. And it is time that real Patriots stopped tolerating this nonsense.
Big whoop. You might as well reference the antecedent to his ‘therefore’, which is simply that those who are citizens of the individual states in the United States are also citizens of the United States.
He’s really no expert or even acknowledging of the concept of natural born citizen as otherwise documented and understood at the time.
IMO your argument has de facto won since Obama took office and the stricter definition is never going to be enforced. But I’m in no way convinced that that’s what the framers meant and it is disingenuous to simply pretend that the stricter definition didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was written.
Also, I am probably closer to being a Cruz Republican than any other type of Republican I can name by an individual.
There's that totalitarian impulse from Jeffy boy again. Geeze, free speech dude. Chill.
It isn't totally nonsense, but when people begin to seriously believe that the voters and their electors ( who rule on candidate qualifications) are going to be swayed by references to the mind games of some Swiss elitist who wore wigs and powdered his nose over 200 years ago, they are beginning to lose touch with reality. None of that baloney will ever matter to voters or their electors and they (and only they) will continue to have the final say on a candidate's qualifications to be president, just as they did in 2008, just as they did in 2012 and just as they did in every single presidential election prior to 2008.
None of these people with all of their musty old foreign books and theories has ever proven the birthplace or paternity of any of our past presidents and none of them has the slightest idea how they might go about proving (to the extent required by their own impossible standards of proof) where Obama was born or the identity of his father or where Cruz was born or the identity of his father.
If Cruz runs, they can present their evidence and cite their ancient treatises and, as always, the president will be selected by the voters and their electors after they have considered all of the candidates' qualifications. And, there will be people who will bitch and moan that the people made another mistake without ever coming to terms with the reality that the people and their electors will undoubtedly make some mistakes. But, we'll get by like we always have gotten by.
And, Obama will go down in history as our first Hawaiian president. ;-)
No, we are just pointing out that a Lawyer Heavily trained in BRITISH law, may not be the best authority for arguing what is the meaning of UNIQUE portions of AMERICAN law. We threw off British legal thinking as regards to subjectship. The law of the time was "Perpetual Allegiance."
We stabbed a dagger right through the heart of British Subject law. We could never be independent had we adhered to it.