You’re getting into this nuanced analysis of the actual allegiances that he may or may not have developed. That’s not that issue any more than the fact that some people may be more mature than others at the age of 35 is relevant to that requirement, which is not at all.
I was responding to someone on their claim that Cruz’s Canadian citizenship would give him allegiance to that country.
And no, the “natural-born citizen” requirement isn’t just like the age requirement. What 35 years of age means is clear, while “natural born citizen” wasn’t defined as the Constitution writers passed up on defining it.
I have to say I wonder if there are Trump supporters here just trying to knock off Cruz with this. I support both of them, and I also have to say, this is just preposterous and counterproductive. Hillary Clinton must be happy today.
If I thought there really was anything substantial to this, I would say so. And if something else emerges to change the picture, I would and will also say so. But at this point, it’s like people arguing that something, because it’s a fact, somehow must disqualify him. Yes, he was born in Canada, as an American citizen, but at this point I don’t at all sees how what the Constitution actually says disqualifies him, or was ever meant to.