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.
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.