This IMNVHO, is theological thinking. Everyman his own priest. Every reader of the Scriptures (COTUS) to interpret it in his own way.
Very well, then. The way I interpret Art II is that a "natural born Citizen," is at the very least, the offspring of two people who were citizens at the time of his birth. Without the SCOTUS, without constitutional authority, what makes me wrong and you right?
If you answer, "The will of the voters," why have a written Constitution?
What I think has happened is that with a man of legitimately questionable eligibility having "won" the Presidency, many of us have decided to use it as a precedent to fight our way back to constitutional republican government with an as yet potential candidate whose eligibility is less than clear-cut to those who interpret the Article II my way, or their way, as opposed to those who agree with you.
Kenny full of Bunk? Could be. When the SCOTUS says so, I think Cruz will be an unbeatable candidate.
The fact that the potential candidate is strong in our beliefs makes the question more difficult. But, the question remains.
Kenny full of Bunk? Could be. When the SCOTUS says so, I think Cruz will be an unbeatable candidate.
The fact that the potential candidate is strong in our beliefs makes the question more difficult. But, the question remains.
Do you give a damn about the Founders' orginal intent - or is it all about 9 people and bureuacratic technicalities? Oh, wait...you've made that clear. Now go enjoy your lo flow toilets.