You and I agree on a few things. So I must ask why you take issue with individuals expressing their interpretations of the Constitution and citing evidence that they believe supports said interpretations? Why not simply dispute their evidence and leave it at that?
The plain and simple truth is that without a ruling on Obama’s specific situation, his eligibility will always be in question with some. It is equally true that some will twist the meaning of the Constitution if doing so results in Obama being ineligible.
But when it gets right down to it, there is only one group whose NBC status cannot be questioned: born on U.S. soil to citizen parents. Federal law operates today on the assumption that statutory citizenship granted at birth is equivalent to NBC but acknowledges that without a judicial ruling on the matter uncertainty exists. If the federal government isn’t sure that its interpretation is correct, how can you be sure that yours is?
There are a few reasons.
One is that the claim is simply false, and I will admit that it annoys me somewhat to have people continually posting things that are false as if they are true.
My gut reaction is that it cheapens FreeRepublic to have people constantly making false Constitutional claims and posting conspiracy-theorist cr*p here.
And it seems that most conservative hosts and forums that would agree with me on that. Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh don't give birthers the time of day. National Review has officially panned the birthers, multiple times. And RedState has pretty much of a no-birthers policy.
It would be different if their arguments had any merit. But they don't.
Another reason is that they are so absolutist and adamant about their false theories. And if anyone takes the view of 99% of America, conservatives included, then that person is "an Obot," "a troll," etc.
So to some degree I think they themselves have created the opposition by being so absolutist and ugly to anyone who doesn't buy into their nonsense.
Another reason is that I don't like seeing the Constitution misrepresented, especially on a site where people claim to value the Constitution.
Another reason is I don't like seeing people led astray. Birtherism is basically sort of a con job, supported by a bunch of fallacious arguments.
Another reason is that I fully believe these people are damaging conservatism, in two ways. First, they stir up a huge pile of nonsense and divert people's energies away from things that might make a positive difference, and into arenas in which we don't have a snowflake's chance in hell of prevailing.
Second, they make conservatives look like idiots and nutjob conspiracy theorists.
The plain and simple truth is that without a ruling on Obama’s specific situation, his eligibility will always be in question with some.
Those rulings have been issued, in multiple courts, specifically regarding Obama. The courts have ruled that Obama's birth in Hawaii is all that it took to make a natural born citizen. And birthers have had absolutely zero success in appealing those court rulings. The Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals on such cases. So the rulings have been made, and there is legally no doubt. Not that there was before the specific rulings were made on Obama, because there wasn't, even then.
But still the birthers go on and on. They will never stop.
So I don't have any plans to ever stop debunking their horse manure.
But when it gets right down to it, there is only one group whose NBC status cannot be questioned: born on U.S. soil to citizen parents.
It's clear to virtually everyone in the legal profession that the born-on-US-soil-of-immigrant-parents question was settled decisively in 1898. Such people are natural born citizens and eligible to be elected President. Period.
People like Ted Cruz are MOST LIKELY also eligible. That's the general consensus, but such a candidacy would probably be litigated, and that's a case the Supreme Court most likely WOULD take.