Posted on 08/28/2013 8:45:24 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
The Founding States made the Constitution amendable as evidenced by the Constituton’s Article V. So if patriots want Cruz to be president then they can quit sitting on their hands and make an amendment to repeal the relevant wording in 2.1.5.
But . . . you didn’t tell ME to ignore the post!
You haven't been paying attention.
As far as the Constitution goes, why would we shoot ourselves in the foot after 8 years of Obama proving the Constitution isn't squat. Cruz is the real deal. Listen to him an you will find him to be 100%. So far, he's my guy.
Me too. Or one term, at least, and a second if he resists the usual temptations and stays true to his principles.
I have to correct myself! I was trying to be systematic and careful, but I missed the obvious:
Obama’s eligibility is still important as he is still President. He can still be removed from office.
OK, that may be true - I’m not sure about the “both” versus “one” parent thing.
RE: While that is most certainly true, such exceptions do not invalidate the rule.
I never said it did. What I am advocating for is a re-think of that part of the constitution in light of what we have known the past 250 years.
It might be time for an amendment ( Which should also include IMHO, whether or not we want birth right citizenship).
See what I mean? New Thread, and who’s it about?
A comment which overlooks the fact that anyone made a citizen by an act of law are themselves "naturalized citizens."
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
>
And if they are required to attack and destroy their original country, would they be able to do it? Would you want to trust their ability to do such a thing?
(Think Russian Immigrant having to fire Nuclear missiles at Russia.)
Better to avoid such a thing altogether.
Note when this was written.
On this, I agree. Having said that, what more effective wording could they have used?
None. I don’t think there was any way they could have foreseen future Americans despising their country.
Sure they can, just watch these threads and see, the Constitution is just a slight inconvenience, if it stands in our way, it is only sacrosanct when the other guy violates it.
Fixed it for you.
You are right, too bad he is not NBC, then he could run. He is not the one we seek, we seek another.
LOL!
See post 53, since everyone else cites their own opinion as settled law, so can Kip.
It is up for discussion for the same reason that Marriage became something other than common sense dictated, it suits someones purpose to redefine plain English.
Conservatives posting here are so lost without a dynamic leader, so they grasp at any hint of true conservatism.
Just remember we have had a lot of these based on hope.
Donald Trump for President! Woo! Woo!
Scott Brown for President! Woo! Woo!
Chris Cristie for President! Woo! Woo!
Marco Rubio for President! Woo! Woo!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.