Replies

It does not matter who wrote the book. You cannot take an opinion out of a book that you find and pretend that all of the Founding Fathers and all of the people who ratified our national Constitution are bound by that opinion even if the opinion seems to you somehow relevant. And, in this case, the opinion is clearly just that. There is no primary source in the form of a case or statute to support anything said in that footnote. Whoever wrote that footnote seemed to like the book that Vattel wrote. That does not serve to make that book an amendment to our Constitution. And, it does not mean that everyone had to like the book that Vattel wrote.

You know, I really have trouble believing that you have ever imagined that the Constitution can be amended or properly interpreted based upon a footnote like that. I suspect that you were so desperate in your attempt to deny the reality of two elections that you would have grasped at anything to find a way out of that outcome. Do you really wonder why the Supreme Court did not grab that footnote and run with it? Really?

Just follow the Constitution. The Founding Fathers told you that the President had to be a natural born citizen. That is all they told you about the citizenship requirement. That is all that they wanted to tell you about it. You are just going to have to accept that reality and somehow find a way to survive with a little bit of uncertainty about which Founders believed what about that provision.

Just join me and vote for Ted Cruz. What can go wrong? ;-)

Just join me and vote for Ted Cruz. What can go wrong?

Don't get me wrong. I am all in favor of Ted Cruz. I just object to the idea that we should lie to ourselves.

After Obama, I consider the eligibility requirements to be irrelevant. As Lincoln Said:

Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation.

Ted Cruz is the candidate I favor. I like Trump and Carson, but Ted Cruz is the only one I trust to fight for the right principles and to fight even when the odds are against him.

It was the law governing the entire state of Pennsylvania, the Capitol of which was the US Capitol at the time the Constitution was written. The legal authorities of Pennsylvania ought to know the intention of the delegates better than any other. The state legislators and the US Congress even shared the same meeting hall.

With both the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the two predecessors of the United States Congress occupying Independence Hall from 1775 to 1783, the state legislature considered proposals for moving the seat of the state government. John Harris, Jr. offered to give 4 acres (2 ha) and 21 square perches (5,717 ft2; 531 m2) of land near the banks of the Susquehanna River in central Pennsylvania to the state, provided that it be eventually used as the site of the capital.[4][7] Harris also laid out a city in 1785, near his plot of land, and named it in honor of his father. In 1799, the legislature voted to relocate the capital to Lancaster instead of Harrisburg, because of Lancaster's greater population.

The legal system of Pennsylvania and that of the US government was inextricably entwined at the time of the Constitutional convention. The Supreme Court was also headquartered in Philadelphia, and among it's first members was James Wilson, John Marshall, and Bushrod Washington, all of whom came out heavily in citing jus sanguinus and some specifically citing Vattel on issues of citizenship.