So your argument is implying that the constitution in reality has no meaning. There can be no meaning if one only accepts what is convenient and rejects the rest. That in essence is to reject the whole.

In Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 the delegates of the coup convention felt the need to exempt themselves even though they were born on the land, well except Hamilton.

I do not accept the opinions of those mystical frauds in black robes except as a means of control for them. Fraud, yes fraud, they are in violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 which unfortunately only alludes to be does not directly state a penalty. That was the purpose of the original Amendment 13 which Lincoln purposely nullified in exchange for support for a promise of being president.

After Odumbo, all the little frauds came out of the woodwork for the 2016 selection period. But even Cruz disagrees with you right up to the point he changed course for his own benefit.
"When Cruz was my constitutional law student at Harvard, he aced the course after making a big point of opposing my views in class — arguing stridently for sticking with the “original meaning” against the idea of a more elastic “living Constitution” whenever such ideas came up. I enjoyed jousting with him, but Ted never convinced me — nor did I convince him.

At least he was consistent in those days. Now, he seems to be a fair weather originalist, abandoning that method’s narrow constraints when it suits his ambition." - https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2...

The only supreme courts (sic) where Pennsylvania and New Jersey which dismissed the suits on the old justice two step, the plaintiff could not demonstrate harm in the present so there is no standing. The only source for your claim is a satirical argument in the Huffington Post which also declared Trump ineligible because he was spawned, not born.

Guess that horse is not dead, in fact it's standing as stud for the 2020 run.

I believe your projection of 85% is overly optimistic for 2020. Based on the distinct possibility of a red route in November, I doubt it will last past November 7th. Of considering the state of banking on Germany and other EU countries, it may not make it to November. It has nothing to do with older men.

I never underestimate but I still have figured out if Cruz is sociopathic or psychopathic, leaning toward psychopathic due to some current actions. He is capable of anything.

As one of the people I admire for his work in the world of trends is wont to say, the six things wrong with this country are Harvard, Princeton, Yale, bullets, bombs and bankers.

Of course, Ayn Rand was a statist. It was her major flaw. She lived through the horrors of government at it's worse; chaos, rebellion, communism and then purge. Then she escaped to this country to only discover that it was all happening here. Still with all her philosophical prowess, she could not make two plus two equal four in this realm. She did not like government in the form she experienced but she just could not shake the concept and accept responsibility for her own actions.

As a political atheist, I do not need to politically justify anything. As an atheist, I reject the whole concept as fraud. Man was born in nature a free soul and to accept slavery goes against that very tenant. The concept of government is at best violence and at worse total slavery. I reject both.

Atheist. I have just spent the morning re-digesting Ayn Rand's paper, "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made". In my opinion atheist is to deny consciousness, better described as solipsism. Personally I am a deist as how can I deny the existence of a superior being as man is incapable of creating or annihilating, he can only alter.

You got to do what you got to do. You elect them, I correct them.