“Just my opinion, and as I said, it is submitted respectfully”
I appreciate that. I also agree the scenario is beyond absurd but situations pushed to the extreme often help when pondering intent.
I believe the natural born clause is a protection, left to us by the founders to midigate the possibility of anyone foriegn usurping the highest office in the nation.
With that in mind I propose the question of ole George’s son getting a crack at the office, and what I believe the founders would do.
If the natural born clause is truly to mitigate divided loyalties then there is no way (in my opinion) that the original intent would allow King George son, or in this case Cruz.
I have no problems with using an extreme to establish limits and work backwards. I do it all the time; you are in good company there, brother. That’s what I was doing when I asked if it would make a difference of George snuck across the border to, ahem, create the scenario you propose.
What I mean is, folks on the board keep asking about an Iranian or a Taliban fathering a child with an American abroad, as if they couldn’t do it in Michigan. I don’t think an interpretation of a vague clause that is more strict than the interpretation established in 1940 helps our sovereignty. I am all for original intent, but I have read persuasive arguments both ways, and in the end 1940 decides as far as I am concerned. I am open to reading more on the subject though.