Mark quickly blew off the “natural born” issue as a nonstarter and it got no life support cept on blogspot radio and a few tenacious attorneys.
I believe it is fear of the powerful weapon used so often by the left - intimidation. Just as many “conservatives” keep their distance from Palin for her Midwestern values, her lack of ivy league credentials, many “good” legal minds are afraid of being labeled “Birthers.” There are no big legal names taking on congress. I suspect that professors and former federal attorneys are loath to appear to join the "fringe" groups and minor lawyers filing suits, with unglamorous active and retired military and minor party affiliations as clients.
Mark teaches the importance of fundamental issues. The founder's brilliance in narrowing the focus to a necessary and sufficient set of principles to serve as a foundation for our legal system did not just happen. There were centuries of legal thought upon which these principles are based. The allegiance of a leader, when blood of a monarch ceases to be the qualification, is critical. The doctrines are very public, but were not of concern in any prior election. We are learning why allegiance is prescribed for the leader of a republic. Obama is changing ours whether we believe or not, because our public voices, our representatives and our press, didn't think being “natural born” was important! It isn't a guarantee - Ayers is natural born. But observing Article II would have prevented Obama from taking office, as it should have.
I heard Michael Medved do the same thing twice, bluntly telling callers to leave it alone.
I didn't know that constitutionality of an issue depends on getting political sponsorship from Mr. Big.
</sarc>