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. :)
Boy, you are incoherent tonight. Yes, your point about John Tyler is valid in that it’s factually correct. He was the first President to be born within the territorial boundries of the United States after 1788.
But it’s totally irrelevant to the discussion as to whether Cruz is eligible or not, as those President’s prior to Tyler were eligible based on a clause that doesn’t apply to Ted Cruz (i.e. they were U.S. citizens at the time the Constitution was ratified. Cruz was not. He was born in 1970). If you’re arguing that their eligibility proves that Cruz is eligible, then you’re fighting an argument that you can’t win. You can either double down on stupid, or bow out gracefully. It’s your choice.