[jonathan lall]

Perhaps you don't understand the significance (or lack thereof) of it being 200 years old. A constitutional law is a constitutional law and has supreme legal standing. What possible relevance to this does the fact that it hasn't been challenged have? The bottom line after all should be: is it just or unjust?

Here's a three-step plan to figure out where you stand:
1) do you believe immigrants should be afforded the same rights and freedoms to those who were born in the United States?
2) do you believe those who can run for mayor or governor should be allowed to run for president?
3) do you believe a president shouldn't necessarily have to be US-born?

I see this rather black and white: If you disagree with either of the first two, your disagreement with the third makes sense (which I believe might be where ngreen is coming from). If you disagree with only the third, you've made an error in logic. I happen to agree with all three.

That argument of yours with respect to expenditure is almost fair, but do you know for a fact how many tax dollars it would take? Would you be of the same opinion if you, or someone you knew were born in Canada, and at age three decided that being President of Canada wasn't good enough and moved to the States? What if this person, having grown up in US schools and voted in US elections, decided he or she wanted to be President of the United States?

That's my thinking.