Do you think any of our founding fathers, if faced with the tyranny that has infected our government for the last 100 years culminating in the election in 2008 with a sociopathic narcissistic dictator who cares nothing about the constitution of individual liberty, would have quibbled over the meaning of three archaic words in the document they drafted while the country was being systematically transformed away from the Republic they established?
Mhg, we are facing tyranny and you want to quibble about three words that might determine whether a modern day George Washington should or should not be President in 2016?
If we don't elect Ted Cruz or someone like him by then, then there we be nothing left of our Constitution to quibble about.
We are in a Revolutionary war right now. A war to restore our republic. The fate of the republic does not rest on the meaning of "Natural Born Citizen". Lets not pretend it does.
The essence of our current calamity is that the Constitution has been set aside so often now that even directions for whom may be eligible for the office of president is purely utilitarian. IF Ted Cruz is about to be the republicants' nominee, the left will do what it has always done so successfully, it will seek to hold us to the purest application of a document that is already in a sad state of abrogation. The democrips never let honesty, truth, honor, or legitimacy stand in their way, they just use those things as bludgeons and never stand by same.
Do you think the arguments so far presented trying to twist the meaning of the Constitution to accommodate Cruz can stand up to the media onslaught? I don't. And therein is the rub. I don't care now, because the Constitution is no longer setting the standard for the rule of law.
Democrips and Republicants alike have abrogated their oaths and passed and enforced legislation which contradicts the Constitution. Roe v Wade is a glaring example of the so called supreme Court doing likewise.
We are at the end of days of what was a Constitutional Republic. Whether Cruz is Constitutionally eligible or not is not the issue facing us, though that is what we are being whipped into a frenzy to focus upon. I personally do not believe Ted Cruz fits the meaning as the founders held it for natural born citizen. And it doesn't matter now, anyway!
As you point out, we the people are fighting for our continued existence as a free people, well, comparatively free. We have been made into indentured servants (tax slaves by another name) to a world-wide financial oligarchy which has placed into office several presidents who have furthered the oligarch's goals. The nation's economy is collapsing around us yet we are arguing whether Cruz is an NBC. What will Cruz do to turn the ship around, THAT is what we should be discussing.
I can hope that we the people have Ted Cruz's ear on issues vital to our national survival. But do we? I don't care if Cruz is not an NBC, if he has the proper focus, to return the rule of Law and turn the debt plummet around, then he is the man I will support for the office. If we spend all our time on debating the purity of his eligibility, we will lose any initiative we currently hold regarding the outrage of the people.
When I ask the same question over and over, the one which Jim responded to, I am seeking to put the issue into the distant past, first. THEN it becomes time to expose our dire situation in all the gory details, so we see which is in fact the issue which will direct our voting. It sure as heck better not be whether Ted Cruz is an NBC.
In that regard, Jim's approach may be powerful; 'it seems some of the founders would have considered Cruz eligible'. And that is as far as we need go. Let the testy play at word games. We are a dying Constitutional Republic. Unless we stop the bleeding we will not get the chance to re-establish another viable Constitutional Republic.
Those three little words are perhaps some of the most important in our Constitution. They were intended as a unique protection, one we do still need today.
Whatever you think of those words, removing them will not restore our republic. My personal fear is that it will have the exact opposite effect, because what will follow in the years after the Ted Cruz type candidate once we open that door?
We are the biggest prize the world has known.
And on this, I agree with you. As Abraham Lincoln said:
I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensabale means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.