NOOOOOOO - it’s an absurd argument....CHURCHILL would NEVER RUN and people would NEVER VOTE FOR HIM if he did.
It’s just a pathetic argument vis a vis Cruz, Jindal, Rubio.....
Can you be any more childish? Rather than engage the discussion, you are SHOUTING.
People voted for Obama, so how do you know who else they would vote for? I bet the left can find someone even worse than Obama. And if all that matters is garnering the support of the American people, then why have a natural born citizen requirement? Do you have more wisdom than the Founders?
I used Churchill because he fit the fact pattern perfectly. The law is supposed to be blind. It should not matter if a particular person is liked or if we believe he would be a great president. Since you don’t like using Churchill, let’s pretend Stalin had an American mother. The legal analysis should be the exact same whether we are considering Stalin or Churchill for presidential eligibility. And the analysis for those two should remain the same when dealing with any candidate today with only one American parent. It should not matter what nation their other parent is from, whether from an obvious ally (Britain or Canada) or an enemy (Syria or commie Cuba).
Another thing, I am certain the Founders didn’t intend to establish an “Enemy Test” for presidential eligibility. After all, who gets to decide who is and is not an enemy. There are lots of Dems who loved communist Cuba and Russia while simultaneously hating Israel. The current political climate should not matter whatsoever in a determination of who is and is not a natural born citizen. The purpose of having a Constitution is so that the law is set and does not blow with changing political winds.