[lucysmom]

Why does it make sense to treat the Natural Born Citizen clause—which is the Constitutional guard against internal overthrow of our country—with a low threshold of proof rather than a high one? By definition, this guard defends the seat of power of our nation.

'Cause that's the way the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. They provided the electoral college and Congressional certification as protections. If that failed, the Constitution lays out a process to get rid of a sitting president, impeachment.

Perhaps if birth certificates were common in the late 1700s, the founding fathers would have required a candidate present his to prove that he met the citizenship requirements, but they didn't.

[reasonisfaith]

But these protections are not a low threshold—they are quite high, at least as originally intended. Our problem is that a speaker of the house, and some recruited gangs and mobs, has stretched her hairy arms way up and bent the thing down to a very low level, so that scoundrels and rapscallions and low down criminals can scamper right over it.

Why should we accept such artificial standards?

Why do you anti-birthers not consider the security of our nation to be a very high priority?