FWIW the courts will rule that anyone born a citizen would qualify as a NBC. So this whole issue is a non sequitur. But the courts will never touch it anyway. So arguing about it at this point is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
In fact arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is probably more productive and edifying than trying to convince anyone on this forum to change their minds on the NBC issue.
To some they would rather see the country destroyed from within than to elect an ineligible leader. If, in the face of the certain tyranny of a Clinton or Sanders presidency, that would be someone’s sole reason to stay home then they do not love this country.
Frankly if Maggie Thatcher were alive and on the ballot against this group of clowns, not only would I vote for her, but I’d quit my job to work on her campaign.
We have a country to save. This kind of nonsense is not going to help. We are all engaged in a circular firing squad here. Thankfully I have run out of ammunition.
Well, you already know that I think Cruz is eligible based on our current laws, so it’s all a moot discussion anyway.
Prof Natelson said it isn’t necessarily clear and suggested individual states might make that known. That’s exactly where it’s been challenged, and there are a few more on the way. And the democrats will probably have another round of them in the unlikely event Cruz wins the primary.
I heard there is now a challenge in California. Do you know anything about it?
By the way, I really like the young Duncan Hunter from your state. Any way we can get him to run?
So? They will also rule that two men can get "married" and that middle aged queers can use little girls' bathrooms.
Court rulings really don't mean much anymore. The courts are nuts nowadays.
In fact arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is probably more productive and edifying than trying to convince anyone on this forum to change their minds on the NBC issue.
Some minds are subject to reason and facts, and many are not.
To some they would rather see the country destroyed from within than to elect an ineligible leader.
Yeah, i've noticed that sort. I've argued with them too.
Frankly if Maggie Thatcher were alive and on the ballot against this group of clowns, not only would I vote for her, but I’d quit my job to work on her campaign.
At this point, so would I.
We have a country to save. This kind of nonsense is not going to help. We are all engaged in a circular firing squad here. Thankfully I have run out of ammunition.
To me, the issue is academic. I want Cruz to be President. I'll settle for Donald, but my preference is Cruz. As Lincoln pointed out:
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. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.
I think we are in just such a situation. The only man I see as most likely to address some of the most serious problems the nation faces, happens to be the one with dubious eligibility qualifications.
But that issue is of small matter compared to the other issues we face.