“That is something we must fight to stop from happening. It goes against our founders original intent.”
Exactly. Yours is one of the clearest-headed posts on this thread.
Is “what’s good for the goose, good for the gander”?
Or... is it not — because the Constitution says so?
If our side is as willing to toss out the requirements of the Constitution, just so that our guy (who isn’t any more “qualified” than their guy was) can get in because we like him — what does that do for our argument as desiring to “protect the Constitution”?
The problem here is that some are more eager to hold Cruz’s feet to the fire than Obama’s.
Fact is, that all the birther debate DID NOT STOP OBAMA.
WHY BEAT UP CRUZ?
I swear to God, We lose again and again because of the law of man.
Can the Rubio/Cruz birthers point to any writings from the time of framing of the Constitution to justify their definition of natural born citizen?
Can they point to any case law?
Can they explain the other Presidents (ie NOT Obama) that didn’t meet their Natural Born Citizen criteria?
It’s strange that all these birthers are experts are the natural born citizen clause, but have nothing to support it in case law or from the writings of the Framers.
If the Framers wanted to ensure that you were born in the United States to two parents of American citizenship why wouldn’t they explicitly put that language in the Constitution.
THANK YOU!... and well said!