Cruz likely eligible to be President

Big Givernment ^ | March 11 | Ken Klukowski

[Fai Mao]

On Mar. 8, reporter Carl Cameron on Special Report on Fox News Channel was surveying potential GOP 2016 presidential candidates. Then he raised Ted Cruz--one of the most brilliant constitutional lawyers ever to serve in the Senate--the new 41-year old Hispanic senator from Texas.

Cameron added, “But Cruz was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible” to run for president. While many people assume that, it’s probably not true.

Cameron was referring to the Constitution’s Article II requirement that only a “natural born citizen” can run for the White House.

No one is certain what that means. Citizenship was primarily defined by each state when the Constitution was adopted. Federal citizenship wasn’t clearly established until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. The Constitution is not clear whether it means you must be born on U.S. soil, or instead whether you must be born a U.S. citizen.

[Windflier]

It's not a big deal either way--I see you're more satisfied with his last answer.

Glad we got that out of the way. Amazing what can be achieved when people just keep communicating, isn't it? Glad we kept at it.

[MamaTexan]

Refusing to vote for Cruz is refusing to vote for Cruz.

Not the issue. The issue was your falsehood that I said I would stay home and/or believed others should do the same.

Again, you are simply being silly.

No, YOU are trying to trivialize your blatantly arrogant and disingenuous behavior by hanging a *cutsie* word like 'silly' ON it.

It suprises me not in the least that you would do so.

[MamaTexan]

Don't apologize for that, or then I'll have to apologize for this one, and this'll take forever.

LOL! Fair enough. I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you since I was responding to other posters.

-----

But generally speaking, yes, a naturalized citizen is one made so through some government-established process.

Agreed. I would like a bit of clarification on a part of it, though.

and I think most consider that the Fourteenth Amendment declared some citizens to be natural born citizens.

So does the 14th, in your opinion, create NBC's?

------

A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen from birth--it means the same thing as "born citizen" or "born a citizen." I define it that way because everything I've read on the subject makes the most sense that way.

Okay, a natural-born is someone who is a citizen at birth.

Do you believe their are any other criteria [such as parentage] that must be met, or is simply being born in the country sufficient?

[DiogenesLamp]

To travel from this country to any other took weeks, any way you cut it. If you went overland to the wilds of the north, it took weeks to get there. If you went overland to the wilds of the south, it took weeks to get there. If you went over the sea to England or France, that took weeks as well.

Part of the issue is that there was no such thing as international tourism in those days. Things like "anchor babies" were unconceived of, and inconceivable. Perhaps if they had considered anchor babies and 300,000 people traveling from London to New York (and vice versa) every single month, they would have made a different decision.

Nonsense. We have a letter from Monroe regarding a British "Anchor Baby" from the period. We have a newspaper article purportedly from James Madison, regarding another. They were not only conceivable, we have proof that one, possibly two founders dealt with this exact issue. And what did they say about it? In the one case Monroe claimed the man was NOT a citizen, and in the other, The man's American citizenship was only recognized if the Law of South Carolina bestowed it upon him.

You just refuse to see these two examples for what they are. Proof that the founders were aware of "anchor babies" and that they rejected the idea.

James Monroe in a letter from Paris, July 4, 1795.

The jealousy which is entertained by this government of the commerce carried on by our countrymen between the ports of this republic and those of England has latterly shewn itself in a more impleasant form than heretofore and I am fearful it will not yet produce some more disagreeable effect. A Mr Eldred was lately apprehended at Marseilles and sent here under guard upon a charge of having given intelligence to the British of some movement in the French fleet. Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since. From what I hear of him, he is not a person of mischevious disposition nor one who would be apt to commit the offence charged upon him, but yet I do not see how I can officially interfere in his behalf, for when once a principle is departed from, it ceases to be a principle. More latterly I was requested by the commissary of foreign affairs to prohibit our consuls from granting passports, which was immediately done. I was afterwards requested by him to furnish a list of the Americans actually in Paris, and to render a like list every decade of those who should in the interim arrive, and which was promised and will be punctually executed. I herewith send you a copy of my instructions to the Consuls and correspondence with the commissary on this subject.

The founders were not idiots.

[Jeff Winston]

As I said over and over on this thread, there’s little point to simply posting excerpts of court opinions and quotations from historical figures, unless they’re used to bolster ones own thinking on the subject. This is a discussion forum, after all.

I would respectfully have to disagree.

For me, the issue is: What is the Constitutional meaning of natural born citizen? What did our Founding Fathers and Framers intend?

And are people such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, etc., Constitutionally eligible or not?

If they are, then it I find it damaging to conservatism to claim that they aren't.

Now that you’re communicating your thoughts on the subject, how about answering the question I posed to you upthread in post 268?

It's really not something I've thought about that much. I'm not in a position to rewrite the Presidential eligibility clause, so my opinion on what it "ought" to be doesn't really matter.

That said, this is two questions in one. If I were living with the Founding Fathers and Framers in their era, with their situation and their view of the world and their knowledge, then I would probably do exactly as they did, and say the President should be a natural born citizen.

If I were able to look 225 years into the future, and see that people would be arguing about what "natural born citizen" meant, with some people claiming that it meant you had to be both born on US soil and have two citizen parents, then I would specify instead that the President had to be "born a citizen." Because based on all the reading and research that I've done, I personally believe that's what they meant by the term.

I don't think they intended to exclude anyone born a US citizen on US soil, whether their parents had naturalized or not. Because the term "natural born citizen" doesn't do that.

And I don't think they intended to exclude those born US citizens to US citizen parents overseas, either, because the first Congress immediately passed a law stating that such people were to be considered natural born citizens. Yes, a later Congress deleted the words "natural born." But as I said earlier, I think there's a clue built into the residency and age requirement for President that the Founders and Framers didn't have a problem with someone being born a US citizen abroad, raised abroad, then returning as a young adult, taking up life here, and eventually being elected President.

So if I were able to look ahead and see that people were going to argue needlessly about the term, I would phrase it "born a citizen" instead. Because again, I think that's what they meant.

It seems to me that Alexander Hamilton, in his notes from the Constitutional Convention, had it right after all.

If I were rewriting the Presidential eligibility clause today, I'm not sure. I'd probably have to give it more thought.

As a conservative, I would tend to return to the principles and values that our original Founders and Framers had, and be influenced by those. They wanted a strong country, and they wanted to protect it from being taken over by foreign powers. They wanted a country with liberty and justice for all. They held this truth to be self-evident: That all men are created equal. They welcomed immigrants, but they preferred to attract the best rather than merely open the doors to all the worst from other countries. So all of these values should be balanced in order to reflect the same kind of values that our Founders held.

In the end, I think I would probably stick with something similar to what they said, but updated somewhat. I would be open to requiring one or two citizen parents, which is really a switch from jus soli to jus sanguinis. But you would have to be careful in making that switch, because I think you could easily end up authorizing people with LESS attachment to our country than we're likely to have using the existing mostly-jus-soli rule.

I would probably up the residency requirement from 14 to 20 years, and would consider 25. I would provide some sort of exemption for years spent overseas in military or diplomatic service, or as a family member (i.e., child) in that situation. And I would probably specify, or give Congress the ability to specify, that children internationally adopted by US citizen parents prior to a certain age (probably around 8 years old) were to be considered native US citizens and be eligible to the Presidency as well. Because I think there's a good argument to be made for that.

Or, I might not. All of that is just off the top of my head, and if I had months to think about it, I might change some of it.

When you start to try and improve on what the Framers did, it can get complicated fairly quickly. They kept it simple.

[Jeff Winston]

A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen from birth--it means the same thing as "born citizen" or "born a citizen." I define it that way because everything I've read on the subject makes the most sense that way.

Okay, a natural-born is someone who is a citizen at birth.

I agree with Ha Ha Thats Very Logical on this. See post 325.

Do you believe their are any other criteria [such as parentage] that must be met, or is simply being born in the country sufficient?

I believe being born a US citizen is sufficient. I believe the Founders and Framers intended all persons born on US soil from that moment forth (remember they didn't have international tourism in those days) to be considered natural born citizens, whether their parents had naturalized or not, and I believe, based on the law passed by the first Congress, and based on what I take to be an age/residency hint in the Presidential eligibility clause itself, that they intended for children born US citizens to US citizens abroad to be eligible as well.

I also believe they intended to extend eligibility to persons who had been born on US soil around the time of the Revolution and carried back to England by their parents, to be able to say, at age 21, "I was born in America and it's a new land, and I want to go over there and take up my American citizenship and be an American," and return here, and have the opportunity to cast their lot in with us and eventually be able to run for President if they so chose.

Some of that might possibly be reading a little bit more into the history than is there. But I kind of don't think so. I tend to believe, based on my own reading, that those were the intentions of the Framers.

[Jeff Winston]

Not the issue. The issue was your falsehood that I said I would stay home and/or believed others should do the same.

My use of the term "staying home" is nothing more than a euphemism for you refusing to vote for Ted Cruz. And frankly, your physical location when you refuse to vote for Ted Cruz for President is completely irrelevant. It means absolutely nothing. The only thing that means anything is that you have said you would refuse to vote for Ted Cruz for President.

Do you not understand euphemism?

As for encouraging others to do the same, what else are you doing when you show up on internet forums and argue that he is not eligible?

How can you possibly think you are supporting conservatism by arguing that Ted Cruz is ineligible to be President?

[Jeff Winston]

You just refuse to see these two examples for what they are. Proof that the founders were aware of "anchor babies" and that they rejected the idea.

No, I don't "refuse to see these two examples for what they are." I see quite clearly what they are.

It is YOU who refuse to see these two examples for what they are. And you refuse to do so, absolutely.

In the case of Eldred, Monroe was writing from Paris, France, in 1795. This was NINETEEN YEARS after the American Revolution had taken place.

Prior to the American Revolution, every person born in America was considered a BRITISH subject.

Upon the Revolution, it was necessary to divide the people into two groups: Those who would henceforth continue to be British subjects, and those who would henceforth be regarded as members of the new nation.

Those who adhered to the COMMUNITIES of which they had always been a part, were subjects or citizens of their State and of the United States. Since they had been born into those communities, those States, they were regarded as natural born subjects, or natural born citizens, of those States and of the United States.

The "grandfather clause" in the Constitution allowing for those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible to the Presidency was NOT for these people, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. It was not needed by them.

It was needed by people such as James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton, who had been born in places like Scotland and the Caribbean, who had come to America and risked their lives and fortunes to help us win our Independence. And it was to honor such loyal Patriots that the grandfather clause was passed.

This is an historical FACT.

Those who were born in America had the opportunity to ELECT to adhere to their communities, or to adhere to the King. They had a CHOICE.

If a person stayed in the United States and participated from that time forth as an American citizen, he was deemed to have elected to be a United States citizen. Again, such persons were considered natural born US citizens, because they were simply continuing the allegiance they had ALWAYS had to their own communities, which were now United States communities.

If a person LEFT the country and moved to England, or elsewhere, he was deemed to have elected NOT to be a United States citizen, but to have continued to adhere to the CROWN. Such a person was considered a natural born subject of England. He had been born in allegiance to the King, and he had continued in that allegiance.

If a person was born in America, but was outside of the United States at the time of the Revolution, he indicated his election by either remaining outside of the United States, or by returning to the US to take up citizenship here. But such election had to be done in a timely manner.

And if a person was a MINOR at the time of the Revolution, he too had the opportunity to specify who he was following: His community, or the King.

If a person was born on US soil, and carried to England as a minor by his or her parents, that person had the ability, upon reaching adulthood, to reject the election of subjecthood to the King that his or her parents had made for him. He or she could return to America as a young adult, and take up United States citizenship, having elected to continue to adhere to the community and not the King.

But such election had to be made in a timely manner. In Inglis (1830), the Supreme Court said that Mr. Inglis had been born during the time when Americans were making such election, and had had the opportunity to return from England as a young adult and take up US citizenship, but that by the time he had reached 40-something years old, it was too late for him to do so. He had "ratified" the choice of British citizenship that his parents had made for him.

Mr. Eldred whom you refer to was in the same circumstances:

Upon inquiry I found he had my passport granted too upon the most substantial documents proving him to be an American citizen; but I likewise found that in truth he was not an American citizen, for although born in America yet he was not there [in America] in the course of our revolution but in England, nor had he been there since.

This letter was written in 1795, 19 years after the Declaration of Independence. Monroe is simply saying that in the division of Americans into United States citizens and English subjects, Eldred had clearly elected to be an subject of England and not a United States citizen.

As for McClure, President Madison's administration sent a letter attesting to his United States citizenship, and he was released. The sole basis stated for his American citizenship was that he had been "born in Charleston since the Revolution." No mention whatsoever was made of his ever having been naturalized, because he wasn't. He was born a citizen. He was a natural born citizen.

Again, there were only two kinds of citizens: natural born citizen, and naturalized citizens. McClure was a natural born citizen.

And the basis for his citizenship mentioned NOTHING whatsoever about the citizenship of his father. He was a natural born United States citizen solely on the basis of the fact that he had been born in Charleston, South Carolina, since the Revolution.

And that phrase: "SINCE THE REVOLUTION" removed from McClure any of the kind of doubt that might attach to a person such as Mr. Eldred. Being born in Charleston clearly after the Revolution, he had had no election to make. He was a natural born United States citizen.

[Jeff Winston]

To further comment:

Prior to the Revolution, Americans had allegiance both to their communities and to the King of England.

And prior to the Revolution, those two allegiances were not in conflict.

At the time of the Revolution, their community and the King parted ways. It was required that Americans choose which allegiance was their primary allegiance, and which they were going to follow.

Those who adhered to their communities as their primary allegiance, were natural born citizens of their communities, their States, and the United States that formed out of their communities.

Those who adhered to the King and his nation were natural born subjects of England.

Again, it was not for the purpose of making eligible people who had been born in America that the grandfather clause was passed. These were natural born subjects or natural born citizens of the United States.

It was for folks like James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton.

[Jeff Winston]

By the way, you’re determined to trot out every misinterpretation of history and law in the birther playbook, aren’t you?

Keep going. There are quite a few, but I’m pretty sure I’ve already heard them all.

I’m making a list for a comprehensive debunking. So you are directly contributing to the final demise of this false doctrine.

[Fantasywriter]

MT, I have debated w the same group you are engaged w, and it is a singular waste of time. You nailed the problem upthread when you said they resort to interminable legalisms as opposed to engaging on a more basic, give-and-take level. There is a reason for that. Namely, their position is so absurd/insane that they cannot and never will boil it down in simple, honest terms.

If they ever did, it would go something like this:

‘Sure, the Framers understood that the ‘magic-dirt’ test of natural bornness carried risk. Foreign enemies could hatch a brat on US soil & later run him for the highest office. If he won he could/would destroy the US in a single term. But hey, we’d have gone out on a high principled stand: namely, that we neither discriminated against the foreign parents nor against a citizen w foreign allegiances (by virtue of their birth, as opposed to ideologically). After all, what is more important, preserving and protecting the Republic, or not hurting the feelings of foreigners & their kids? The Framers clearly, OBVIOUSLY elevated the feelings of foreigners (& their issue) above the preservation of the Republic; anybody who doesn’t get that is obtuse.’

This is precisely what they’d have to say, if they ever engaged on a genuinely logical, rational basis. That is why you get the endless legalistic, dishonest and endlessly repetitious cut and paste routine. Because anyone who breaks it down to its bare essentials can see that the Framers were not idiots & would never have willingly turned the country over to an enemy w foreign allegiances & the goal of destroying the country. That is a proposition so ludicrous no magic-dirt cultist can or ever will enunciate it. To do so would fall under the category of ‘losing the argument’, so they avoid it—i.e.: the truth—at all costs.

Hence the frustration you feel, as these fundamentally dishonest individuals retreat to their magical make-believe universe where Obama’s gleeful destruction of the USA isn’t happening, and where everything is going to be hunky dory after the next election, or possibly the one after that. They give their pathetic little pep talks about how the US has withstood worse than Obama, and tell us to buck up because everything is going to be just fine when pie-in-the-sky time rolls around—really it is, take their word for it.

No, it’s not ever going to be fine again. The USA, w the full backing of the magic-dirt crowd, put into its highest office a man who hates the country and whose reign has one goal: to destroy the USA. He isn’t seeking, as a liberal, to replace the free market economy w a socialistic utopia; he’s seeking, as a man w professed primary foreign allegiances, revenge against the Colonialist superpower that oppressed the continent to which he pledged his first loyalty: Africa. As POTUS, he is in a unique position to first cripple & then destroy his hated enemy, and he’s already succeeded. Anybody who doesn’t see this is either not paying attention or is a liberal. Period.

To sum up. The magic-dirters are saying that the Framers’ purpose in enshrining the right of foreigners to spawn our presidents was to clear the way for Obama to ascend to the highest office and destroy the country. I.e.: they recognized that a person w innate & self-stated primary foreign loyalties would qualify for the office under their terms, and that if such a person won an election they would use the office to destroy the Union—and they were fine w that. They considered the annihilation of the USA a sm price to pay for not discriminating against a person just because they happened to have foreign allegiances by birth.

That is the magic-dirt position in a nutshell. Plus, as an aside, they really don’t care that much that the USA is history. So long as Obama was not discriminated against, the collateral damage is no big deal. ‘Oh, so the entire country is collateral damage? No problem; at least we didn’t hurt Little Barry’s feelings, and that’s all that matters.’

[MamaTexan]

Thank you so much for you post!

I can't argue with a single word of it. :-)

[Fantasywriter]

I have appreciated your posts too. I read most of them last night. I didn’t have time to add a thought of my own till today.

I do believe God can still work a miracle on our behalf. So many are praying for this country’s survival, perhaps He will intervene. Don’t get me wrong. When I pray for Obama, I pray ONLY for blessings upon him. What’s that Scriptural admonition, ‘Bless those who persecute you, bless and curse not’ - or words v much to that effect. But God has many resources, and if He desires He can still deliver us. I pray He will.

Barring Divine intervention, it’s hard to see where we have a chance. It’s easier to destroy than to preserve and protect, and Obama has been only too successful in his destruction. You can understand why liberals don’t see this. The mystery is how conservatives manage NOT to see it. There are none so blind as those who will not see, I guess. The present age is proof of that.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

So does the 14th, in your opinion, create NBC's?

You've used the present tense, and right off I can't think of any way the 14th acts currently to create NBCs. As for the past, I do think the intention was (among other things) to establish that freed slaves were NBCs. But this Bingham character we hear so much about said that the introductory clause was "simply declaratory," which implies that they were already something. I don't know exactly what they were considered to be in between the 13th and the 14th.

Do you believe their are any other criteria [such as parentage] that must be met, or is simply being born in the country sufficient?

It is sufficient.

[Windflier]

"...how about answering the question I posed to you upthread in post 268?"

It's really not something I've thought about that much. I'm not in a position to rewrite the Presidential eligibility clause, so my opinion on what it "ought" to be doesn't really matter.

( insert ten paragraphs of lawyer-like dancing around the question here )

All of that is just off the top of my head, and if I had months to think about it, I might change some of it.

Jeff, you just posted 650+ words in ten paragraphs, and completely avoided answering my very simple question. After posting tens of thousands of words on this subject on Free Republic, you honestly want me to believe that you "haven't thought that much" about what reasoning the Framers used to set the citizenship qualifications for the office of President?

You're only fooling yourself, Jeff. No one reading here, believes that for a second. This subject consumes you. It's your obsession. Oh yes, you have thought about all this, long and hard.

You danced all around my simple question, because you know that applying the most rudimentary reasoning to it, can only produce one answer. That answer is poison to your argument, but it's the only logical conclusion. You can't say it in public, because if you do, everything you've invested in your position on this subject will be lost.

I'll give you one more chance to answer the question. Giving any response but a straight and simple answer, is automatic forfeiture of the entire argument:

Which pedigree of citizenship would you logically consider most likely to produce the kind of person who would remain unerringly loyal to your people, in the office of President:

A. A citizen born in a foreign country to parents who were also born there?

B. A citizen born in this country to parents who were born in a foreign land?

C. A citizen born in this country to one parent born here, and the other born elsewhere?

D. A citizen born in this country to parents who were also born here?

Applying simple deductive reasoning, tell me which of those conditions of citizenship is most likely to produce the sort of loyalty one would want in a national Chief Executive.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Thank you so much for you post!
I can't argue with a single word of it. :-)

I gave a fair amount of thought to answering your questions. But if you truly believe that what's behind my opinions, as Fantasywriter claims, is the idea

that the Framers’ purpose in enshrining the right of foreigners to spawn our presidents was to clear the way for Obama to ascend to the highest office and destroy the country. I.e.: they recognized that a person w innate & self-stated primary foreign loyalties would qualify for the office under their terms, and that if such a person won an election they would use the office to destroy the Union—and they were fine w that

--if you really think that's where I'm coming from, I don't think I have anything more to say to you.

[Fantasywriter]

Logic and common sense is to the magic-dirt argument what garlic and holy water is to a vampire.

But common sense, much less logic, are not strong suits in the magic-dirt universe. Arguing that the Framers desired persons w foreign allegiances to gain the highest office, from which their actions [toward the goal of destroying the country] would be only too predictable, is literally insane.

Likewise arguing that Obama, by virtue of his Kenyan-half/father, has no foreign allegiance, is equally insane/ludicrous/nonsensical. Obama has told us, in so many words, that his first allegiance is to Africa/his father/Kenya. Not only that, but his actions have matched his words. Only in the magical make-believe world of magic-dirt is this unknown—and willfully so.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Logic and common sense is to the magic-dirt argument what garlic and holy water is to a vampire.

Yadda yadda yadda. This is why I don't bother to engage with you. I hadn't realized MamaTexan shared your fantasy.

[DiogenesLamp]

In the case of Eldred, Monroe was writing from Paris, France, in 1795. This was NINETEEN YEARS after the American Revolution had taken place.

And you've suddenly forgotten about Mr. Smith? You can't have it both ways.

This is an historical FACT.

Blah blah blah. You always assert that YOUR OPINION is "Historical FACT!" No, it isn't.

As for McClure, President Madison's administration sent a letter attesting to his United States citizenship, and he was released. The sole basis stated for his American citizenship was that he had been "born in Charleston since the Revolution." No mention whatsoever was made of his ever having been naturalized, because he wasn't. He was born a citizen. He was a natural born citizen.

And again you lie by omission. Secretary of State James Monroe sent a letter only after having received proof that James McClure qualified as a citizen of South Carolina when he was born. The proof was provided by a member of the South Carolina congressional delegation, and by a Supreme Court Justice. The letter would not have been sent had the proof not been forthcoming.

James Monroe, November 27, 1811

Joel Barlow Esq. Department of State Paris Nov. 27, 1811

Sir

I have the honor to enclose several affidavits and certificates just handed to me by Mr. Cheves the Representative in Congress from the City of Charleston proving that James McClure now detained in France as a British Prisoner of War was born in Charleston since the Revolution. To these Papers is annexed a Certificate of W[illiam] Johnson Esq. one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States before whom the affidavits were taken stating “that agreeable to the laws and usage of the United States, the said affidavits and Certificates are sufficient to establish the fact that James M McClure above named is a Citizen of the United States.” As such he must be considered by this Government. You will therefore interpose your good offices in his behalf and obtain his release from confinement as soon as possible.

I have James Monroe

Mr McClure spent over a year in French Custody because Ambassador Armstrong refused to recognize his citizenship even though he had a birth certificate from South Carolina. Not only did Armstrong deny his citizenship, he provided the French Authorities with information which they used to ARREST McClure as an "English Prisoner of France."

James McClure was in French custody from April 10, 1810 to sometime after November 27, 1811, when Monroe wrote the letter. A year and a half in French custody on what YOU argue is a simple jus soli rule?

So Ambassador John Armstrong is too stupid to know that James McClure was a citizen because he was born in Charleston? And James Monroe was so stupid that he needed to see Affidavits and Certificates from South Carolina to convince him McClure was a citizen?

Your theory keeps coming back to this; The Founders were stupid.

Yeah, pull the other one.

[MamaTexan]

It's true I don't believe the Founders intented foreign citizens to give birth to natural born citizens without having gone through the naturalization process themselves, and it's true I believe the purpose of that intent was to prevent someone with questionable loyalties from holding office.

If, however, you believe the conversation should end based on the illustrative language of someone who has given themselves the nickname 'fantasywriter', it's your choice.

-------

if you really think that's where I'm coming from, I don't think I have anything more to say to you.

I would never, for one second, make a single assumption about what you think based on the words of someone else.

I just don't work that way.