“You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. There is a major difference of opinion among constitutional scholars on the definition of NBC and eligibility for the Presidency.”
You are only repeating the lies of Tribe, Olson, and the others in defiance of the quoted facts and the opinions of the legal scholars who refuted those people.
“You may fancy yourself as the final arbiter of the issue, but you are totally irrelevant to the discussion or the reality that currently exists.”
There you go again inventing yet another strawman argument and false logic. I have never claimed to be “the final arbiter of the issue,” and on the contrary urge every reader to investigate the actual legal authorities and sources to make their own independent judgments based on the actual evidence and not the opinions of lawyers and politicians who are actively working to subvert the laws and the Constitution for their own political and personal gain. I may explain the concepts that are involved to help readers to understand the subject matter, but it must always conform to the evidence found in the legal sources, common law traditions, and Natural Law as described in the legal dictionaries, the legal treatises, and other sources of legal and political authority known to the authors of the Constitution. It is regrettable that you choose not to acknowledge or respect the truth of that objective approach to the investigation of the eligibility debate.
“Is Obama a NBC eligible to be President? I suspect you will say no. Yet we have Obama elected twice to the WH acting as the President and CIC.”
Obama is neither the first nor the first to do so in the United States, because President Chester Arthur was also a British citizen who unlawfully served as POTUS with bad consequences for the United States that we are still experiencing at this time.
“You can stomp your foot and get red in the face that he is ineligible, but your opinion is irrelevant. We now have the question of the eligibility of both Cruz and Rubio. They are running for President. That is the reality.”
Again, you are engaging in another strawman argument to entertain yourself. There is no “ stomp your foot and get red in the face” antics involved. That is just another attempt to ridicule as an ad hominem attack. Still, if you insist upon aiding and abetting the gross contempt for the Constitution and the law, don’t be surprised if and when against all odds humorless people who kept their oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic have no sympathy for your bad choices when it comes time to punish the willful outlaws. The law is right there for you to read, understand, and obey. If you choose to treat it with contempt and ridicule while thinking you are safe in adopting what someone tells you to do and to think, you make yourself no better than the people who were complicit with such totalitarian governments as NAZI Germany, the Soviet Union, and so many other murderous regimes. The natural born citizen clause is not a triviality, and its abuse has already had very profound consequences as ineligible and unlawful Presidents have appointed justices to the U.S. Supreme court who were themselves appointed unlawfully and wreaked disastrous consequences upon our American society.
I am sure you did not read the 103 page research paper that goes into great detail on the issue. All of the legal citations and history are painstakingly laid out in great detail. Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one.
Yes, there is disagreement among acknowledged constitutional scholars. They differ. Only the courts can resolve those differences.
It is regrettable that you choose not to acknowledge or respect the truth of that objective approach to the investigation of the eligibility debate.
I acknowledge the debate, but the debate hasn't been resolved. Only the courts can do that.
Obama is neither the first nor the first to do so in the United States, because President Chester Arthur was also a British citizen who unlawfully served as POTUS with bad consequences for the United States that we are still experiencing at this time.
His father was not a US citizen at the time. There is even some dispute that he was not born in the US, but rather Canada. I am very aware of all of this. We have gone over the issue of Obama's eligibility in great depth here on FR. I participated in those discussions.
Still, if you insist upon aiding and abetting the gross contempt for the Constitution and the law, don’t be surprised if and when against all odds humorless people who kept their oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic have no sympathy for your bad choices when it comes time to punish the willful outlaws.
As someone who has sworn to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, as a naval officer and foreign service officer, I take that responsibility seriously, even risking my life to do so. I don't need any lectures from you when it comes to service and patriotism.
The law is right there for you to read, understand, and obey.
BS. The definition of NBC has never been litigated as it applies to eligibility for the Presidency. It needs to be decided in the courts.
you make yourself no better than the people who were complicit with such totalitarian governments as NAZI Germany, the Soviet Union, and so many other murderous regimes.
You are an a$$hole. I lived in a communist country for two years. I understand the difference between totalitarianism and a free republic.