[Jeff Winston]

At and by birth, or at and by statute? Cruz is a US citizen by naturalization statute.

We've been over this several times already, so don't pretend you haven't heard it before.

Obviously the Framers of the Constitution believed that, in accordance with past practice in the common law, the legislature had the power to specify exactly who, born outside of the country, was to be considered a natural born citizen (and thus eligible to the Presidency).

Because the First Congress and First President, which included 40% of the Signers of the Constitution, did exactly that.

And of course Bayard, and Chief Justice John Marshall ("The Great Chief Justice") agreed that persons in Cruz's situation WERE ELIGIBLE.

All of this means that your desire for Ted Cruz not to be eligible, is hogwash.

[Ray76]

Firstly, my “desire for Ted Cruz not to be eligible” is a product of your imagination. I do not place political power above rule of law. I think Cruz has an outstanding record of accomplishment and it is unfortunate that there aren’t more who are of like mind and as capable as he. He is not Art. II eligible however.

Secondly, by your own standard: “the legislature had the power to specify exactly who, born outside of the country, was to be considered a natural born citizen” Cruz is not eligible. There is no current statute specifying who, born outside the country, is to be considered a natural born citizen. Every statute regarding that class specifies “citizen”.

[DiogenesLamp]

Obviously the Framers of the Constitution believed that, in accordance with past practice in the common law, the legislature had the power to specify exactly who, born outside of the country, was to be considered a natural born citizen (and thus eligible to the Presidency).

Does the legislature have the power to specify exactly what are "arms"? Inquiring minds want to know! Can the legislature RE-DEFINE the meaning of words in our Founding document?

Tell us Jeff! Tell us Whether there is any Solid Rock in our National foundation! Tell us Jeff! Where does the "legislature specifying" what words mean ever end?

Why on God's Earth would you WANT the meaning of Words used in our Constitution to be malleable?

Supporting this idea is tantamount to supporting the Liberal Doctrine of a "Living Constitution", and it counts you among our enemies, not our friends.

Congress DOES NOT, the Courts DO NOT, have the POWER to change the meaning of words in the US Constitution. The meanings are FIXED and IMMUTABLE, and can only be changed by Constitutional Amendment in which, the Change is explicitly described and ratified by the consent of the governed.

Because the First Congress and First President, which included 40% of the Signers of the Constitution, did exactly that. And now Jeff is Claiming EVERYBODY AGREES WITH ME again. To this I have to credit him with delusion rather than deliberate lying. His mind is so twisted up with garbage that he ACTUALLY believes this. No they didn't Jeff. They explicitly disagreed with you, but you have a mental block to realizing this.

And of course Bayard, and Chief Justice John Marshall ("The Great Chief Justice") agreed that persons in Cruz's situation WERE ELIGIBLE.

But this is mostly a deliberate lie, with a good helping of delusion mixed in as well. As Demonstrated to you COUNTLESS TIMES, Chief Justice John Marshall EXPLICITLY and with malice aforethought B*TCHSLAPPED YOUR CLAIM INTO THE NEXT UNIVERSE!

All of this means that your desire for Ted Cruz not to be eligible, is hogwash.

It means that little deceitful minds ought to be kept far away from mommy's computer. They simply spread disinformation and nonsense; an act which serves us all ill.