Replies

When we find ourselves trying to distinguish between citizens "at birth" and citizens "by birth," a more fundamental question arises: just how important is it for us to try to technically disqualify a candidate who receives the support of a majority of voters/electors? Is there really a possibility that a majority of voters/electors might elect someone who is not a citizen or who is a citizen, but has little or no political connection to this country?

All of this crazy, inherently speculative extra-constitutional scrutiny is situational. If Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal or Nikki Haley gets the nomination in 2016, there will be lots of new left wing birthers who will replace the current crop of birthers and who will benefit from all of the present "research."

Ted Cruz - 2016 (a natural born citizen by birth and at birth)

Well, I don't know. I think it's hard to overestimate people's stupidity. I mean, they elected Clinton. They elected Obama. They're baying for George Zimmerman's blood. And until a couple of days ago, they looked set to elect Anthony Weiner.

So I think there's a balance. You have to have the rules. But at some point, in the end, you also have to trust the People to do the right thing.

Or at least, to do the wrong thing and then realize they've screwed it up and fix it.

So as long as the system works, it should be at least somewhat self-correcting. But the integrity of the system is important. And for that reason legitimate eligibility questions are important.

If Ted Cruz runs and wins, he'll probably be challenged in court. And the courts will say he's eligible.

And that's all fine. It's as it should be. And I'll tell you this: It's a helluva lot better than martial law.