Well, good for you!
While I don’t agree with your opinion on the issue (I think NBC means citizen at birth as opposed to naturalized) I greatly respect that you would apply it against a candidate you like as well as one you don’t like.
The only problem with my theory is that it appears Congress has changed the definition of who is a citizen at birth several times. Which conflicts badly with a constitutional definition of NBC.
I wish somebody could get the Supremes to define the term and we could drop the issue. :)
Thank you — it's kind of odd, but I've been called [essentially] traitor
and phoney conservative
for refusing to hold Cruz to a different standard than Obama.
Citizen at birth includes naturalized citizens, citizen by birth does not.
Now this is a statement to which I take exception. The Supreme court might declare what the legions of Government Arms will enforce, but they can't actually change REALITY.
It is like saying " I wish the Supreme Court would hurry up and define Pi."
Sorry, they can't. Besides, any body that interprets the 14th amendment as allowing Abortion and Gay Marriage is not a body I would want "interpreting" anything.
Keep going... you are starting to "get it." How can Congress modify the meaning of a Constitutional requirement at their whim? Well they can't.
They can create Citizens through their power of naturalization, but they cannot make them "natural" citizens.