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.
I’m sure there’s some truth to the claim that this is just a political attack, but for me it does actually go much deeper. I am a firm believer in the Constitution and the rule of law and although it’s an admittedly murky issue to define, at the same time it involves the highest levels of our government. Furthermore I happen to also believe that a big part of the problems we face derive from people at the highest levels of government with divided loyalties. Enforcing this one rule passed down to us from the Founders is then a key part of everything that’s important to me in politics.
They didn't define the little baby Jesus either, but they mentioned him in the Constitution.
In both cases, I guess they figured everyone knew what they were talking about.