Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: W. W. SMITH

First, which of those three cases, which I have read, went to the merits of eligibility for POTUS? Second, why would you suggest someone has changed anything related to these three cases in order to hide them? I found them, and the issues to which they addressed (none being related to eligibility for POTUS). If you and I can find these three cases, why would you think constititional law scholars or practicing attorneys would be unable to find them, if they indeed pertained to the issue of eligibility for POTUS? The unfortunate reality is that there is no existing case law which speaks directly to the issue of citizenship eligibility with respect to whether the person running for POTUS has parents who were born in another country, other than opinions by legal scholars, which hold no legal weight.


108 posted on 01/03/2012 11:25:05 AM PST by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier currently deployed in the Valley of Death, Afghanistan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]


To: SoldierDad

The constitution demands that a president be a “natural born citizen”. It is the supreme court that has defined “natural born citizen”. Three times no less. It is all in simple clear English offering no ambiguity. This leads one to suspect the motives of those who claim otherwise.


117 posted on 01/03/2012 11:49:48 AM PST by W. W. SMITH (Obama is an instrument of enslavement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson