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.
They didn't about Obama, either, despite the fact that he obviously isn't an NBC, having been born in Kenya.
I'm as die-hard a birther as there is one. But even I know he was born in Hawaii. You're goofy on the born in Kenya claim. Pretty much tells us your other ideas and opinions (not facts) are goofy too.
And because the courts refused to rule against Obama, and because he has been (regretfully) our president for 8 years, then let this precedent apply to Cruz or Rubio. If the SCOTUS believes one or both are ineligible - they have the final ruling, right?