If you are going through logic 101, then he who asserts must prove. You raised the concern about Ted’s eligibility... but have no proof. The burden is on you.
The quote you provided did not support your stance, and in fact wasn’t even the current version of the law (which also does not support your stance).
So again... what support do you offer for your position?
I raised concerns; I did not assert.
Therefore, I may not have to prove. (That is if P -> Q and ~P, then Q may or may not be true; ex: If it rains, then you are wet. It did not rain. [You could still be wet from, say, sprinklers.]
)
The quote you provided did not support your stance, and in fact wasn’t even the current version of the law (which also does not support your stance).
So again... what support do you offer for your position?
My personal position, right now, is that legally-speaking Natural Born Citizen
is, at this point, essentially undefined. I think that legally-speaking we cannot get a clear answer form the courts, in part because to do so would damage the position of the elites. (I'm fairly sure Obama isn't a NBC, I strongly suspect McCain isn't, and I have some doubts as to Romney — in short, I think the `08 and `12 presidential elections were engineered to give precedent to ignoring/destroying the NBC requirement.) As I've said, repeatedly, the definition I proffered is the strictest [reasonable] one I've found, not necessarily what I think is the correct definition. (It would, for example, disqualify children of ambassadors — obviously absurd.)
As for support of the strict definition, how about John Bingham, the Father of the 14th Amendment
?