OBAMA IS LEGAL

Dr. Onaka worked under the supervision of Dr. Fukino during the Lingle Administration. Dr. Fukino can certainly testify to what she observed when she and Dr. Onaka viewed the Long Form Birth Certificate for Obama.

Both Dr. Fukino and Dr. Onaka are defendants in the Taitz, et. al. v Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee, et. al. lawsuit. If the federal judge doesn’t grant the defense Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings, we may all get to hear from Dr. Fukino (and Dr. Onaka and Loretta Fuddy).

Simple answer to your question, no, your arrest about it not being legal under the fact that a fake police officer does not have the authorty to arrest you under the law.
In fact ? a citizen has more authority under the constitution than even a fake police officer with a fake badge to make a citizen's arrest.

You're mixing apples, oranges, and metaphors.

The "Natural Born Citizen" is not only a constitutional requirement, it is a tradition. The particulars of the requirement are not spelled out in the COTUS. However, the TRADITION is quite clear.

It does (or did) not matter a jot WHERE the parents were born, or whether they themselves were "Natural Born Citizens," or naturalized immigrants. As long as BOTH parents were citizens of the US, the offspring was held to be "Natural Born."

Traditionally, Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Charles Evans Hughes, and a whole host of wannabe and actual Presidents would NOT be "Natural Born Citizens. The only precedent Obama has is Chester A. Arthur, who modern scholarship has definitely established, was a goddam liar. He knew he was not an NBC, and finagled his way around it and destroyed all the evidence

Obama aside, which he soon will be anyway, we need to define citizenship, and Natural Born Citizenship. For example, by what stretch of the law is the offspring of two illegal aliens to be considered a US citizen?

At the very least, the black-robed bumkissers of the SCOTUS owe us a ruling on the many valid appeals they and their clerks have rejected. Who's correct: the Traditionalists? The Obamanites?

THIS IS A VALID CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

It does (or did) not matter a jot WHERE the parents were born, or whether they themselves were "Natural Born Citizens," or naturalized immigrants. As long as BOTH parents were citizens of the US, the offspring was held to be "Natural Born."

Nobody's disputing that.

What we are disputing is the notion that it's the only way to be a natural born citizen.

There's just no support for that position in the Constitution itself, and at least one Founder (a rather important one at that) strenuously disagreed. Birth in the US (save for the offspring of diplomats and invading armies) grants NBC all by itself.

If we don't like it, the answer is to change the law. Pretending that the Constitution says something that it does not is a leftist's game.