[STE=Q]

What they both fail to realize is that none of the U.S. Supreme Court cases have done anything at all to change the meaning and interpretation of Article II. They could not even if they wanted to, because it requires a Constitutional Amendment to change Article II, not a judge’s opinion or a statute from Congress.

"This is a rather bold statement. Courts have interpreted the meaning of the Constitution ever since Marbury v. Madison and will continue to do so."

============================================================

The problem is the meaning and interpretation of the "Natural Born Citizen" clause -- in Article II -- is based on Natural law.

If Natural law can be "interpreted" out of the constitution, then the constitution becomes "just a piece of parchment"... writ and un-writ, according to the ever changing whims of man.

Forget separation of church and state.

The subverter's would like to separate the constitution from Natural law; thus making our unalienable, Natural rights --bestowed by a "creator" -- alienable and subject to the State.

In short, the sovereignty -- the liberty -- of "the people" is being transfered to the State.

The State then takes the place of a "creator" that has bestowed "unalienable rights"

To the contrary, the rights the State "bestows" are alienable and can be taken away, at a moments notice, by same.

The stakes are high and our liberty hangs in the balance.

"A CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT ONCE CHANGED FROM FREEDOM, CAN NEVER BE RESTORED. LIBERTY, ONCE LOST, IS LOST FOREVER." ~JOHN ADAMS

STE=Q

[centurion316]

Every single word in the Constitution may be changed:

1. Judicial interpretation (establishment clause, commerce clause

2. Amendment (Amendments 1 through n)

3. Constitutional Convention (yet to occur)

There are no exceptions for “natural law” whatever that means.