See post 16. There are over 2 dozen opinions and decisions on the NBC issue in that post alone. My post 26 bring 50 more to the table regarding Obama.
And these are just a few. The fact is - this NBC issue - which defines a special class of citizenship unique solely and only to the President of the United States is by no means settled law.
If it was, would we be having this conversation?
Nobody disputes the 35 years of age requirement, right? This whole NBC nonsense needs to be addressed by an Amendment to the Constitution. Unless and until that happens - the SCOTUS has the final say so.
And as far as I know - They ain't said (bleep) on Cruz or Rubio. So - continue to see tagline.
No - post 16 doesn't bring to the table two dozen different opinions. It brings two dozen opinions all saying the same thing - NBC depends on place of birth.
And these are just a few. The fact is - this NBC issue - which defines a special class of citizenship unique solely and only to the President of the United States is by no means settled law.
There's a difference between saying something is "settled law" and that something is "obvious" per the evidence. It's obvious per the evidence that NBC is by place of birth only, regardless of the fact that courts haven't directly ruled on it yet to "settle it according to law." A large part of why that hasn't happened, I suspect, is because everybody knew, up until our constitutionally illiterate 20th century, that an NBC was determined by birth within our jurisdiction.
And as far as I know - They ain't said (bleep) on Cruz or Rubio. So - continue to see tagline.
They didn't about Obama, either, despite the fact that he obviously isn't an NBC, having been born in Kenya.