TRUE, We are in agreement. I absolutely would prefer any patriot over the leftists alternatives.
It just seems that the push to lower the standards for the highest office in the land throws the door wide open to those born anywhere, including the nations of hostile enemies. It greatly increases the potential for conflicted loyalties. Our electorate has proven to be grossly naive in the selection of the current potus and his division of loyalties.
It is highly doubtful that anyone questions Cruz’s patriotism. The problem lies with those that may follow him in the future. I care about America’s future way beyond 2016.
We all know that the DNC would absolutely target this issue. Why nominate someone who is subject to be disqualified by your opponent.
So as not to get too bogged down into this discussion, I'll just say that my view of the Constitution (and I am a lawyer who has litigated in the Supreme Court of my own state, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court), is that the determination of what constitutes a "natural born citizen" was left to Congress, within I suppose some extreme parameters. I also believe that this is the view that would prevail at the Supreme Court, unanimously. Punting a controversial political issue to the lawmaking process is always appealing.
The problem lies with those that may follow him in the future. I care about America’s future way beyond 2016.
So do I. But look -- the truth is that a disloyal, anti-American scumbag could just as easily be a natural born citizen -- we all could name a few, I suspect. So ultimately, the best check on us electing someone like that is simply the voters themselves. And if we lack that ability, then the NBC clause isn't going to save us anyway