Johnny, I've looked at the Constitution and the laws, as well as most of the Framers' writings on this matter, and I believe they intended for that office to be restricted to people whose loyalty to America was ensured by their ties to the blood and the land of this country.
I know that other decent Americans see it otherwise, but I don't call them idiots for seeing it that way. I just think they're willing to accept a lower standard for that office than I am.
I don’t believe he’s eligible, not because of some esoteric arguement rooted in common law, but because the courts have not given a definative answer on this issue. IOW, it’s not settled law.
It is very likely to become settled law only after HRH Clinton sues to have the election results overturned.
I don’t trust the courts to decide anything in favor of the American people, and I see no reason why we would intentionally expose ourselves to that risk. Cruz is not the only patriot available.
This is not an arguement for “birtherism”, it’s a prediction.
I don’t believe he’s eligible, not because of some esoteric arguement rooted in common law, but because the courts have not given a definative answer on this issue. IOW, it’s not settled law.
It is very likely to become settled law only after HRH Clinton sues to have the election results overturned.
I don’t trust the courts to decide anything in favor of the American people, and I see no reason why we would intentionally expose ourselves to that risk. Cruz is not the only patriot available.
This is not an arguement for “birtherism”, it’s a prediction.
/johnny
Then you undoubtedly came across this gem spoken by Mr. Madison but chose to ignore it: "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States;"
This was spoken by James Madison on 22 May 1789. Source here: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html