You people persist in attempting to foist your crazy theories on us here. Here’s an idea, convince ONE judge. Convince ONE Secretary of State. Convince ONE congressman or Senator of your point of view. You couldn’t even convince Scalia for pete’s sake! You know you can’t do it so what does that make you — the ONLY true patriots? What a joke!
I’m still waiting for someone to show the law that requires citizen parents to children born on U.S. soil to qualify as NBC. No such thing exists.
I’d be willing to bet the farm that if Romney had picked Rubio as his VP there would not have been the slightest problem or squawk except from a very small group in this forum and I don’t care how much study you’ve put into it; some students just never get the lesson.
I agree with you that Obama is not NBC though but not for the reasons you postulate. I believe he was born in Kenya and I’m waiting for that to be proven and I’m sure it will.
The United States recognizes TWO categories of citizens, those born here (natural) and those born elsewhere and naturalized by law. NATURAL and NATURALIZED. PERIOD! No proof of anything different.
The Constitution itself PLAINLY shows us that we do not have a legal President without having to cite the natural born citizen requirement at all. It's all there in the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three. This is why I asked you to provide proof that a legitimate birth certificate had EVER been presented to anyone, much less Congress. If no one has seen it, we do not have a legal President. period.
I know there is a possibility that my interpretation of their thinking may be incorrect ... then again, perhaps not (after all, it's clear that my interpretation is given substantial credibility by the actions of the arguably "foreign" president since January 2009). But either way I will avoid characterizing your interpretation (not, "theory") as "crazy" no matter how extra-Constitutional it appears to be.
As far as convincing ONE (sic) judge, ONE (sic) secretary of state, ONE (sic) congressman or Senator -- well that, unfortunately, has little to do with the Constitution. Rather (and this is the "theory" part), it has to do with no ONE in a position of power desiring to be to go down in history as the person who exposed the first muslim/mulatto/negro/Kenyan/Communist (you pick) president as a Constitutionally ineligible fraud.
Unfortunately, to many of our political leaders defending the Constitution is more a matter of convenience than a commitment to our republican form of government.
Cheers!
You cannot answer my point, so you resort to this bit of subterfuge above. That's what I thought. You know the McClure case is Kryptonite for your theory. It is a blatant example of your theory breaking down when tested.
Armstrong, and Madison both were present at the Constitutional debates, and both of them were in agreement as to this man's citizenship status. They both rejected the theory that he was automatically a citizen because he was born here.
The truth will eventually out. Eventually, even the slow witted and precedent laden Judiciary will figure out the truth.
The judges were already convinced in four cases, two of them while some of the framers were still alive.
The judges said Two citizen parents required.
The fact was taught in school since the end of the civil war, and understanding it was a requirement for passing the eigth grade.
You’re a stubborn fool at best.