Replies

Then you also also disagree with G. Washington, John Jay and the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Vattel and the Law of Nations issue was not introduced in those court cases, as they were not explicitely about the “Natural Born Citizen” issue.

Many people disagree with G. Washington and even John Jay. While their opinion is important, it was not the only one at the time. You are wrong about US v. Wong. It did indeed argue that children of aliens born on the soil were Natural Born Citizens. See page 655 of that case.

Chester A. Arthur was President of the United States. His Father was not a US Citizen when he was born and by the laws of the time neither was his Mother. Nevertheless, he was elected President and no one argued that he was not eligible.

This argument is some off shoot of the immigration argument. I'm not dogmatic about it, I'm just pretty sure where the law stands at this point. Maybe it should be changed, but right now regardless of what you think the "founders" thought (they didn't agree totally on much of anything), the law doesn't agree with you.

Now I'll let this go because there is no end to this argument.

I'm encouraged to see more and more reference to the constitution, more understanding of the remarkable construction of a core of ideas which protect our freedom, among them, that the president of republic be a natural born citizen. The new government and its constitution was born into globalism of a sort, intentionally not a monarchy where the monarch's allegiance is obvious and usually spans generations.

I hope the Mombasa birth document forces the courts to “discover” the facts. I hope it is legitimate. Even if it isn't it demonstrates that thousands and probably millions of people are concerned about the collapse of the symbol of individual freedoms for the world into a “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, which is really a utopia for the politically privileged - while it lasts.

Finally, the constitutional issue, whether jus soli - born of the soil, or jus sanguinis - of parents who were citizens, it is Article II which makes Obama illegitimate. I don't doubt that the legislature would quickly pass a law to avoid the specter of riots, and the legal morass of undoing the partial government takeover of private enterprise. That's why there is a separation of powers.

I suspect that real turmoil will come as people begin to understand what the idolizers of Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, Whalid Bin Talaal, Bill Ayers, John Holdren & Paul Ehrlich, and Karl Max will impose on us. The people who don't produce will discover where their groceries come from as they destroy the productivity bred of freedom.