[DiogenesLamp]

By the way, it’s clear that the Founding Fathers and Framers didn’t share your nannyish view that the PEOPLE had to have their hands held and had to be absolutely prohibited from ever having the possibility of electing someone like Ted Cruz whose father was (gasp) not a United States citizen when Ted was born.

If they had held the nanny view you espouse, then they would NEVER have simply specified that the President had to be a “natural born citizen,” since that term NEVER excluded those born on US soil of non-citizen immigrant parents.

If they had held the nanny view you espouse, then they would NEVER have specified that the President only had to reside for 14 years of his life in the United States in order to be eligible to be President.

And if they had held the nanny view that you espouse, then they would NEVER have tolerated 3 of our first 4 Presidents holding dual citizenship at the exact time that they were serving as President of the United States.

Edited to clarify Jeff's well reasoned and logical argument.

[Jeff Winston]

Edited to clarify Jeff's well reasoned and logical argument.

That's good. You've shown you can distort a person's words to pull attention away from the substantive points.

Of course you're quite skilled in word-twisting. You've been doing it with the words of people like Jacob Howard, James Monroe (in the Eldred affair), the United States Supreme Court (in Minor and Wong) for a long time now.