“I think you will find that in the year 2015 there are very few Americans who believe that a child (born of an American mother) who left a foreign land at age four, never to return and who lived the rest of his 44 years in the United States has any sort of allegiance to that foreign land.”
Conservatives are supposed to believe in the “rule of law” and not in the rule by diktat for political expediency, yet here you are arguing we must disregard the law and the Constitution because it is not politically expedient for you or those whom you would pretend to represent. If you don not like the “natural born citizens clause”, you are certainly free to secure the support of those people you talk about above to ratify an amendment to the Constitution removing the natural born citizen clause. In the meantime, perhaps you would care to demonstrate conservative values by defending the Constitution and its natural born citizen clause is currently written by the Founding Fathers.
“That’s just silly and not worthy of conservative thought.”
Conservative thought defends the “rule of law” and the natural born citizen clause until such time as an amendment to the Constitution is adopted by Congress and the ratifying States. What you are arguing for is nothing less than mob rule just like the Liberals, Progressives, and Communists you claim to be opposing as a conservative, but you are actually opposing as another outlaw political competitor instead.
“Its right there in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, a person only needed to be a CITIZEN at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to become president IF they had lived in the United States for fourteen years.”
Yes, it is. The Founding Fathers were not concerned enough about those persons who were citizens of the United States of America at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to restrict all persons from the Office of the President who were not born in the United Colonies as the children of colonial subjects. They were, however, concerned about those person who would be born afterwards, because it was such common practice in Europe to install foreigners as sovereigns over a nation of subjects. To impede any such attempts, the Founding Fathers used the natural born citizen clause to make such efforts too difficult to accomplish.
“Allegiance is developed over the course of a person’s life and is especially acquired with age and maturity. Newborns have no concept of nation or allegiance.”
Your statement is utterly wrong, because it was a matter of law in 1787 and long afterwards that Britain claimed and demanded the allegiance of every child born within the jurisdiction of the British Crown for life with no provision for expatriation without alienation of the territory. You really ought to know better than to put forward such a false statement as that.
Well, if you can convince any judge in America or any member of Congress of the correctness of your personal opinions, more power to you.
More than 200 original jurisdiction courts, more than 90 state and federal appellate courts and more than 20 appeals to the Supreme Court have had the opportunity to review the natural born citizen requirement since 2008 and not once has any judge or any court ruled that Obama does not qualify.
Congress has never held a hearing on the issue.