You missed my point. Here’s an analogy to help.
A prominent physician dies. Researchers pore over his notes for yrs afterward. It is noted that the physician isolated a certain virus. A dispute develops over what the dr intended to do w the virus. One side says he clearly meant it to be injected into human beings because it had beneficial properties. The other side says he explicitly warned against using it on humans.
After many yrs the virus is interjected into a human being for the first and only time. The subject dies.
The first side says the death is irrelevant. They continue to asseverate that the virus has beneficial properties—per their interpretation of the dead dr’s notes—and should be used again & again.
The second group says the death indicates their reading of the notes is the correct one.
This is where you stand, JW. You finally got your way and got a POTUS w divided loyalties by birth. He wrecked the country—on purpose—in a single term. The outcome was predictable, but you refuse to see any cause & effect. In fact, you’d do it again. The loss of the country is no price at all from your POV. Just so long as persons w foreign allegiances are allowed in the Oval Office, you’re happy.
As a conservative, I regard the Constitution with a certain amount of sacredness. It is the fundamental law of our land.
For reasons of my own, I also regard the truth with a certain amount of sacredness. Maybe it has to do with growing up in church, and in a culture that very highly values honesty and truth.
I don't have a huge problem with your saying, "The Founding Fathers were wrong on this one. Or, at least, they were not capable of foreseeing what the world has become. The policy that they set up, by which they allowed people to be born on US soil of non-citizen parents and then grow up to become President, is not serving us well. We need to change it."
Now I might or might not personally agree with such an opinion. And, to be perfectly honest, I very well might not. I can think of several reasons why I might not personally agree with such an opinion.
James Madison, for example, didn't like the "tincture of illiberality" that he felt enshrining certain citizenship limitations on our legislators would introduce. He was not opposed to such qualifications, but didn't feel the Constitution was the place for them:
Mr. MADISON, was not averse to some restrictions on this subject; but could never agree to the proposed amendment. He thought any restriction however in the Constitution unnecessary, and improper. unnecessary; because the Natl. Legislre. is to have the right of regulating naturalization, and can by virtue thereof fix different periods of residence as conditions of enjoying different privileges of Citizenship: Improper; because it will give a tincture of illiberality to the Constitution: because it will put it out of the power of the Nat1 Legislature even by special acts of naturalization to confer the full rank of Citizens on meritorious strangers & because it will discourage the most desireable class of people from emigrating to the U. S. Should the proposed Constitution have the intended effect of giving stability & reputation to our Govts. great numbers of respectable Europeans: men who love liberty and wish to partake its blessings, will be ready to transfer their fortunes hither. All such would feel the mortification of being marked with suspicious incapacitations though they sd. not covet the public honors He was not apprehensive that any dangerous number of strangers would be appointed by the State Legislatures, if they were left at liberty to do so: nor that foreign powers would made use of strangers as instruments for their purposes. Their bribes would be expended on men whose circumstances would rather stifle than excite jealousy & watchfulness in the public.
I think Ted Cruz is a good argument against such a policy. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal may not be quite as good arguments as Ted Cruz, but they are arguments as well.
In any event, whether I would agree with such an Amendment or not, it is perfectly, absolutely, clearly LEGITIMATE political discourse to suggest that such an Amendment would be a good idea, to push for it, etc.
The thing that I have a problem with, is people saying that the Founding Fathers and Framers made such and such a rule, when it is very clear that they didn't.
Historically, legally, or otherwise, there is nothing of any substance to support the idea that THEY intended to restrict Presidential eligibility to persons born on US soil of two citizen parents.
There's nothing of any substance to support the idea that Vattel ever spoke about "natural born citizens." He didn't. He spoke of natives and indigenes.
There's nothing of any substance to support the idea that the Founding Fathers and Framers meant anything by the term "natural born citizen" substantially different from what they meant by "natural born subject," except for the difference between subject and citizen.
There's nothing of any substance to support the idea that the Founding Fathers or Framers looked to Vattel for their ideas on the definition of citizenship or any other domestic issue, including the right to keep and bear arms, government control of religion (Vattel was for it), and the ability of the government to physically and forcibly restrict its citizens from leaving the country and taking their talents elsewhere (another idea which Vattel was for).
So my position is: If you think that Presidential eligibility should require birth on US soil to two citizen parents, that's fine. Lobby for a Constitutional Amendment to make it so. Just don't misrepresent our history, our law, our Founders and our Constitution by claiming that's the way it already is. Because that particular assertion simply isn't true.
I hope that clarifies my position.