Replies

I do like how you argue, though. End of argument, period.

Reminds me of Obama talking about global warming.

The issue is one of constitutionality. As of now, Ted Cruz is eligible for the exact reasons I posted.

In order for it to be arguable, you'll have to get it to the Supreme Court. Highly unlikely given the Current President was born of one citizen and one non-citizen, especially given the make-up of the court.

Wanting something to be so, does not make it so.

And only some of the sources support your contention of original intent, others do not.

Steep hill to climb and one entirely built on supposition.

Whereas, with respect to current law, the Constitution, and Supreme Court rulings as of today, it is absolutely certain that Ted Cruz is eligible to be POTUS.

If I really cared, I'd get a picture of Inigo Montoya and have him tell you that you keep using the word "arguable" but I don't think you know what it means. Now you are saying that the 2-citizen position is not arguable because it is not likely to ever make it to the Supreme Court. That is something different entirely.

The Court refuses to take lots of important issues. That does not change the meaning of the Constitution, it just means the court doesn't want to get involved. Even past Constitutional decisions can't change the Constitution, they only serve as guideposts for what it says. Those decisions can be reversed when a later court looks at the Constitution and says that existing decisions are wrong. See, e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. The foundation is always the Constitution, and its meaning doesn't change.