'I Would Be Open to That': Tulsi Gabbard Throws Her Hat In for Trump's VP Pick

Can forty thousand Frenchmen be wrong?

You’re condemning This Guy for not “fitting in” but instead seeking to give appropriate life to John Jay’s July 25, 1787 “not..any but” sentiment, conveyed to George Washington himself. Jay clearly believed and intended that what he was suggesting in terms of a change to the then-current CONUS draft would imbue true distinguishing power to the Constitutional language setting forth requirements for POTUS (and later, VPOTUS).

Since when is This Guy required to account for the misbehavior, negligence, intellectual lassitude, nonfeasance, malfeasance, of others, of both major political parties, who effeminately shy away from the one obviously appropriate NBC definition?

Must everyone be a go along to get along type to win your favor?

Obviously, no Freeper has to account to me, but, either everyone got NBC wrong, from Chester Arthur, in 1880, to 2008, and that error must be corrected, or they did not.

If they did get it wrong from 1880 to 2008, then any fair minded person would wonder how, and why we know now that everyone was wrong for 128 years. If there was an explanation, I mean one that explains, and does not make Birthers look ridiculous, it would be given.

Birthers have a superficially plausible case for some of their arguments, if you ignore the fact that the Constitution wasn't read that way, until 2008. There are rules of construction for ascertaining just what a statute, or constitutional provision, actually means. And one of them is that is that if one superficially plausible understanding of a provision has been used, without controversy, for many years, and the legislature has not attempted to amend the law, to clarify its meaning, then you cannot substitute another meaning, even if it too is superficially plausible.

Congress has, on more than one occasion, sent to the several states proposed Amendments to the Constitution, for the express purpose of clearing up perceived ambiguities. Congress has also, on more than one occasion, passed legislation to more particularly define how acts required by the Constitution, such as convening a new Congress, or counting the Electoral Votes, are carried out.

The absence of proposed Amendments, or Legislation, or even the introduction of bills/resolutions for such amendments or legislation, prior to 2008, shows that there was no controversy prior to 2008. And there is no way that a brand new understanding of what an NBC is will be adopted.

If the Birther Belief that American Citizens born in American territories are not NBCs had been advocated, and prevailed, in 1880, and men like Curtis, and Goldwater, had never run for President, because everyone's understanding of the Constitution was that they were not eligible, I would be equally scornful of anyone trying to overturn 144 years of precedent, by claiming that Tulsi Gabbard was eligible to be President.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.