Replies

So the question is supposed to be resolved on the basis of results? We should decide what the Framers meant based on what loopholes others may have discovered?

That it yields ridiculous results ought to constitute the best evidence that it is incorrect. The framers were NOT STUPID!

It's funny to me that the side arguing that we should interpret the Constitution in whatever way is required to get the results we want claims to be the "conservative" side, while the side arguing that we should accept what the Framers said regardless of how it might be abused is denigrated as the "liberal" side.

You are misconstruing the point. The founders stated clearly what were their intentions regarding Article II requirements. It is axiomatic that your interpretation does not serve their intentions, ergo it is incorrect.

The Framers may well have been horrified that a man of Barack Obama's or Ted Cruz's parentage could become president. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't prove they forbade it. They'd probably have been horrified that a man of Mitt Romney's or Eric Cantor's religion could become president, too, but they didn't forbid that either.

So now you are pulling out "the founders were RACISTS!!!!" card? The objection up till now was that Barack did not have an American Father, and was therefore not a natural born citizen. Last I checked, Americans were not required to be a specific race, so as race is immaterial to the point of a foreign father, your point is an intentional mis-characterization of your opposition.

In other words, a sleazy ad hominem.

The objection up till now was that Barack did not have an American Father, and was therefore not a natural born citizen. Last I checked, Americans were not required to be a specific race, so as race is immaterial to the point of a foreign father, your point is an intentional mis-characterization of your opposition.

If you can't refute the facts, change the question.

Isn't that how they play it?

So now you are pulling out "the founders were RACISTS!!!!" card? The objection up till now was that Barack did not have an American Father, and was therefore not a natural born citizen. Last I checked, Americans were not required to be a specific race, so as race is immaterial to the point of a foreign father, your point is an intentional mis-characterization of your opposition.
In other words, a sleazy ad hominem.

Uh, I didn't say anything about race. "Parentage" covers "Barack did not have an American Father."