Replies

LJ, you are right that some people are such zealots that rational discussion of any issue perceived as threatening is impossible for them.

And LF, in my opinion, you are right in that we are much closer to the edge than most people think. How bad could it get? Think about Kim Jung Un having had his ex-girl friend arrested and machine-gunned to death. Although I doubt that extent of evil chaos will ever become the norm here, North Korea represents the end station of the rule of man over the rule of law.

Here is a well known bit of history from the founding:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. — John Jay

When John Jay wrote this to George Washington, notice how he spelled the words - "born" underlined and "Citizen" capitalized. That alone strongly suggests that "born" and "natural" were functionally separate in his mind. Anyway, his statement and the way he wrote it are historical facts and are generally accepted as being a key part of the push to include the phrase as part of the Constitution's eligibility clause.

John Jay also clearly stated the intended purpose and effect of the clause, that is to restrict the presidency to only those who by their very inborn nature and being were 100 percent red-blooded Americans.

Of course, any such rule, even if generally successful in effect, will have its exceptions and exclude non-nbC's who are the very essence of patriots and allow anti-American traitors who ancestors all may well have arrived on the Mayflower.

From the personal experience of having lived and worked in foreign countries on two separate occasions, the longest stint having been three years when my children were in grade school, it is my personal opinion that very young children are shaped very little by anything other than their parents. It is only when (and if) they enter school within the local community that this begins to change. Where Ted Cruz was born and raised to the age of four had zero influence on his present day mentality, one way or the other. But like I noted earlier, rules are not perfect and I agree with your worry that the dems will use this eligibility doubt about Cruz to their full advantage, should he be nominated.

When well over 90 percent of the population meets the strictest definition of natural born Citizen, why can't we just choose one of those and simply avoid all doubt? However, if it comes down to Cruz versus Hillary, I am casting my vote for Cruz, just like I cast my vote for Palin in spite of McLame.

Ted Cruz no doubt meets the spirit of the nbC clause in that he is a 100 percent red-blooded pro-American patriot at heart, but I would be lying if I were to say that I believe he truly meets the letter of the eligibility law as set forth in the Constitution as envisioned by the founders.

My children were born in America but while I was working in a foreign (western) land my son attended the local school for three years. He learned to speak a foreign tongue and learned to behave in foreign ways in order to be accepted by his peers (which he very much was). One of the reasons we returned when we did is because he was becoming a hybrid young citizen of two lands. This would not be an issue for most service personnel stationed overseas as their children typically attend American schools. McLame was probably completely "undiluted" by have been born in Panama (but he still turned out to be a rino weasel). But the law cannot have clauses for every conceivable exception. It can only attempt to improve the odds of ending up with a pro America president. And without the rule-of-law we have nothing.