You don't need the long form to know that, so I'm not quite sure why you make such a big deal about it.
You idiot - I have NEVER once asked to see the long form BC, it is NOT relevant. What IS relevant is whether he is NBC.
He can go to court and argue that he is NBC - the government can argue he is not. But, SCOTUS will have to affirm [or deny] once and for all with the words: "Obama is [or is not] a natural born citizen".
The justices on SCOTUS are already aware that his father wasn't a US citizen, and yet they refused to hear the case. I think that's pretty indicative of the fact 1that they believe the issue was already settled, long ago, in Obama's favor.
Wrong, Buffalo Breath ...
SCOTUS has refused to hear these cases without comment - and letting the lower courts' rulings of "lack of standing" stand. NO COURT HAS CITED ARK AS STARE DECISIS IN DISMISSING THESE CASES.
However, there is still one case that I know of outstanding - a petition for a writ quo warranto in the District of Columbia. If granted, Obama would have to show that he is eligible to the office - and that means proving he is NBC. He can argue Ark, as I have said before, but it will be up to the courts to decide.
A person born with two allegiances cannot be a natural born subject [citizen] - which was the understanding of the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was written.
Unfortunately, the Wong precedent says you are wrong, and it doesn't appear likely that the current court would overturn it.
You know, you don't have ANYTHING but Ark [which DID NOT declare Ark NBC] - so, you have to keep coming back to it, PLEADING for someone to see it your way.
Grow a pair of brass ones and find some documentation to support your proposition !!!
BTW: That must be MIGHTY FINE Kool-Aid yer drinkin' !!!
Good luck with that. However, let me save you a lot of time and tell you what will happen: SCOTUS, if it even gets that far, will simply refuse to hear it, as this has already been decided by Ark.
SCOTUS has refused to hear these cases without comment - and letting the lower courts' rulings of "lack of standing" stand. NO COURT HAS CITED ARK AS STARE DECISIS IN DISMISSING THESE CASES.
The Indiana court of appeals did. See Ankeny and Kruse v. Indiana:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Their discussion of Ark starts on page 13.
You know, you don't have ANYTHING but Ark
There are also the books and cases cited by Ark, which you were kind enough to reproduce on this thread. All of them support my position, not yours. Unfortuantely, your reading skills are so poor, you can't figure that out for yourself.
Instead you project and call me stupid. I feel sorry for you.