Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not even from this country?
I've spent a grand total of six weeks of my life in the US. Who cares? American politics is of global significance and relevance.
(I also have a professional interest in the history of North America - mainly Canada, but I have been employed on US topics before.)
Also, you don't seem to acknowledge what "think critically" means. If you're thinking critically, you'd see that there's nothing technical against someone like Cruz (you said it yourself; unclear or ambiguous definition of what it means to be a natural born citizen). You'd see that the only question into Cruz's legitimacy stems from intention to sabotage his campaign (nobody actually cares).
No, critical thinking would recognise that there are a range of opinions on the interpretation of this clause, some of which diverge from your own. It has been interpreted differently across American history by political figures, legal scholars, and others. Your failure to acknowledge this is not critical thinking, it is simplistic.
I don't even know why you're pursuing this so vehemently because we agree about how it
should be interpreted. You just seem unwilling to entertain that other perspectives exist or that there could be a need to clarify the definition in a court of law.
If Ted Cruz were to be elected president, his Canadianness would not be why he'd be a terrible president. That would be due to his policies.
I agree.
A court case is just asking someone's opinion of a one line phrase and taking it as rule of law because they have a gavel.
Stop being silly. Are you even familiar with the sort of legal minutiae that goes before courts? Are you suggesting all court rulings are just "someone's opinion ... because they have a gavel"? This question is of significant import and a court should clarify the interpretation because, as has been noted repeatedly,
there are divergent interpretations of the phrase. Should a person born outside the US with American citizenship be elected president, a decision will need to be taken on which interpretation has force of law. I do not see why this is objectionable.
Your final comment accusing me of bias against Cruz or Republicans in general is barely even worth acknowledging given that I stated the same case would have been valid had Obama actually been born in Kenya. You're seeing bias where there is none.
That wasn't even my suggestion? My suggestion was that I don't care about someone's opinion if the issue doesn't directly pertain to them.
So the only things on which I am allowed an opinion are those that directly affect straight white male New Zealand-Australian dual citizens?
Guess I must now stop caring about marriage equality, feminism, Aboriginal and Maori rights, etc.
What a narrow way of seeing and understanding the world that would be.