Not terrified, but recognizing that it rests on inadequate legal grounds, and exposes all involved to discredit and ridicule. Why do you think it's been ruled against so many times? Why do you think the Supreme Court won't touch it? Because it's legally ridiculous, and wanting it to be effective doesn't make it so.
Okay, to insure clear communications I am going to make certain that you understand I am referring specifically to efforts to get a certified copy of his Original Hawaiian birth certificate placed in front of election officials. On what legal grounds is this inadequate? All they submitted was a signed statement by Nancy Pelosi. Do you regard this as adequate proof on which to allow ballot access?
Why do you think it's been ruled against so many times?
(This time referring to the meaning of "natural born citizen" issue, which is a SEPARATE issue from that which I am mentioning in this thread.)
I've answered that many times. It's because the entire legal system has misinterpreted precedent years ago, but they keep erroneously using this misinterpreted precedent.
Why do you think the Supreme Court won't touch it? Because it's legally ridiculous, and wanting it to be effective doesn't make it so.
(Again, on the meaning of "Natural born citizen" issue, which I am NOT attempting to discuss in this thread.)
It's legally consistent, but does not fit the precedent which these people have been taught, which incidentally is misinterpreted.