>>>Since we already have the experience of an ineligible AND unqualified leftist under our belts, <<<
The Constitution doesn’t speak to being “unqualified,” other than the need to be an NBC, reside in the country at least 14 years, and be at least 35 years old. The rest is left to the public to judge.
On the “ineligible” part, Obama’s situation isn’t Cruz’s.
There was no talk about Obama not being eligible merely because one parent was American and if was actually born in Kenya, was born on foreign soil. Those points were part of the issue, but not the issue itself.
The issue was not if Obama was possibly not an NBC, but if he was actually born in Kenya, not Hawaii, in the particular year he was born, then under the laws in effect THEN, he would not be even an American citizen.
In the case of him not even being an American citizen to begin with, the NBC question would be moot. You can’t be NBC without even being a citizen.
And that doubt was furthered by different discoveries that suggested he might not have had American citizenship throughout his childhood and young adulthood.
In such a case, he might have “belatedly,” in later adulthood, been recognized as an American citizen, just for the purpose of him being eligible to be President.
If some plot like that put him into office, that’s treason.
But that’s not what we’re talking about in Cruz’s case.
He was a citizen from birth, and that was registered with the American consulate.
>>>”why the hell would you want to drive a stake through the heart of the original intent of the founders by putting up an ineligible candidate from our side.”<<<
What is your own personal definition of original intent, I ask first.
Then I also have to ask, how do you even know you are getting the original intent of something written in the Constitution? The conditions that the Constitution writers lived with, in the 1780’s have long since passed away.
I can see from being in my mid-forties now, that the conditions of past generations, like the World War I, Depression, World War II generations, no longer exist.
It’s also been over twenty-five years now since the Cold War with the Soviet Union ended, and with the end of it, a lot of the lessons learned from it have been forgotten too.
So what I’m saying is, have you considered how the over-riding concern of NBC was the matter of a candidate’s allegiances, but how the conditions that produce that concern have changed since then? It often means nothing, for one thing, that Muslims are born here, perhaps even to American citizen parents.
>>>” ineligible anchor babies Rubio and Jindal (out)” >>> “It would forever nullify the elevated set of qualifications, required only for the highest elected position of power in the land.”
Cruz, Rubio and Jindal were already allowed to run. They’ve been in the race, and even if they drop out, does it make sense to allow them to run and then say they’re not eligible. They don’t just do this on the spur of the moment. Even if conditions already haven’t changed to make these types of candidacies allowable under the Constitution, so that they may be stopped, why hasn’t every effort been made to nip them in the bud?
And two other questions:
What mechanism do you imagine to be there to remedy the problem?
If one remedy is for Cruz to seek Congress’s approval, or a legal decision, will you accept if he’s allowed to run?
And I haven’t seen among those who say Cruz isn’t eligible any uniform agreement on what NBC is. One says this about the candidate’s parents, and others say that. It’s a point Cruz made in the debate about Trump not being eligible either, according to some.
I don't have a "personal definition". I defer to the "conventional wisdom" of the day as described by one Morrison Waite.
...how do you even know you are getting the original intent of something written in the Constitution?
By looking back into history.
The conditions that the Constitution writers lived with, in the 1780's have long since passed away.
Maybe so, but they were still pretty fresh when this was written.
>>The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
Excerpt Minor v Happersett (1874)
That's what everyone believed a hundred years into US History, and what they believed when it was taught to me as a school kid in the 60s.