How do you get around that...

It would appear Ted Cruz wants to president of the United States... the problem is he was born in Canada, which, as it happens, is not part of the United States. So how will he work around the pesky little problem of Article 2, Section 5 of the Constitution which states:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

He is by definition not a natural born citizen at the tender age of 44, not "...a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." It doesn't take a fancy law degree to wig out that little nugget.

Update: According to a report at NPR, Ted Cruz is a 'natural born citizen'. His mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth. 'Natural born Citizen' has never been define by the Supreme Court but there seems to include (1) birth on U.S. soil and (2) born to U.S. citizen parent(s) - essentially citizen conferred in utero.

Not pot, not kettle

I just came across a transcript of Bill O'Reilly implying that Christiane Amanpour's critique of Benjamin Netanyahu's recent speech to Congress is not worthy of 'trust' (after all she 'was raised in Iran until age 11'). When it comes to the issues of journalistic integrity and trustworthiness, Bill O'Reilly could not have chosen a worst time to raise these questions. Considering his less than truthful recounting of his reporting career highlights (see here, here, and here), he's not the pot calling Amanpour's kettle black... that would equate the quality of his work to hers. He's the bits of blacken cooked on debris flaking off the pot calling the kettle black. It's a wonder that his audience is so blind to his Forest Gump tendency to insert his manufactured personality into the historically relevant moments.  Forest Gump is a positive force that Bill O'Reilly could only aspire too.

Related to recent assassinations

Related to recent assassinations

The recent murders of the prison official in Colorado and district attorney and his wife in Texas <http://www.npr.org/2013/04/02/176035798/experts-prison-gang-reach-increasingly-extends-into-streets>; <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/family-from-hell-the-rise-of-the-aryan-brotherhood-8563520.html> brought a few issues to mind…

-Were the guns used in those shootings obtained legally? What rules/laws permitted those gun acquisitions? What was the role of the NRA in supporting or obstructing the rules/laws in question?

-I also wonder if militia groups have caches of weapons, their legality and the role the NRA played in the rules/laws that permitted such stockpiling.

-Is has been speculated that prison gangs are responsible for these murders… what is the prevalence of prison gangs in government runner prisons compared to privately operated prisons?

What if…

- All laws passed by the federal government have to be fully funded. If not fully funded for some period (1-2 quarters), that law will be considered obsolete, defunct, and removed from the law books. There can be no picking and choosing of funding/defunding specific amendments.

- All lawmakers at all levels of government are only paid the fraction of their salary not funded by borrowing. For example, locale whose budget involves borrowing 50% of their spending can only pay their lawmakers 50% of their salary. This would also be reflected in their retirement benefits. Other government workers would not be affected because _only_ lawmakers can make widespread spending decisions which affect and extend beyond their entire constituency.

Would lawmakers construct more thoughtful laws and request more constructive rules?