Again, the status of the first Presidents up to Tyler is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as the elegibility of all prior Presidents was explicitly provided for by a claus in article II that clearly doesn’t apply to Ted Cruz’s situation. So, the John Tyler point is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Let’s at least be honest about that.
My “rant” as you call it has never been about Cruz, but your introduction of irrelevant points to the debate. We can have a debate about Cruz if you like. I’m game. But if you’d paid attention to my posts, you’d notice that I haven’t made an argument either way about whether Cruz is eligible or not. I only challenged you on two points. Point 1, that the John Tyler scenario has any relevance to the debate about Cruz’s elegibility. Point 2, that the Constitution grants equal rights to all citizens. Clearly it doesn’t.
I made the wholly valid point about who was the first undisputed President born in the US. In a thread about a natural born citizen entitled by the US Constitution, who like many of the first Presidents was not born in the US.
Especially meaningful considering I reduced your rant to what you think the framers had in mind... which is hilarious considering they made themselves eligible - LoL!
Yea, thanks for adding. :)