“Which is it? There is room for honest disagreement, or disagreeing with the position you advocate represents incompetence and ignorance?”
The birther argument is a weak one. However, if you read the dissent to WKA, you will find it has some merit. I agree with this statement in the dissent:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html
I could do without the racism, but I don’t think the Founders ever considered the idea that the child of a tourist would qualify for President. However, it is worth remembering that in the original draft, a naturalized citizen would have qualified.
But as a matter of law, rather than philosophy, there is not a lot of wiggle room. An administrative judge can’t go by what he thinks, but by legal precedence - and that is very strongly in favor of rejecting a requirement for two citizen parents.
The Supreme Court could decide that Obama’s father was here so shortly that he was not domiciled here, or argue that times had changed since English common law since, in the 1300-1600, there weren’t many tourists or exchange students even. I very strongly doubt they would do that, but there is a little wiggle room for them.
But an administrative judge is not in a position to reject guidance from the Supreme Court, in dicta that has been very influential for over 100 years. I actually hoped he would, since it could conceivably set up a Supreme Court case that would give a definitive ruling...but I honestly think the Supreme Court feels they already HAVE give a definitive ruling, over 100 years ago.
Taking the examples of the general welfare clause and the interstate commerce clause, the courts were NEVER going to appeal to original intent regarding NBC.
Mainstream dominant law schools and lawyers reject original intent as a concept. They weren’t going to let it in the back door with NBC.
Talkers mostly play the cards they’re dealt. “Life isn’t fair.”