“The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.”
I’m sorry, but like all the other Birther BS posted here, this is BS as well.
This is typical non-lawyer playing lawyer.
For example, it assumes that certain inclusions create all other circumstances as exclusions.
As just one example, Minor held that men could vote. Do you want to argue that Women had no inherent right to vote until the 19th was passed.
Did Dred Scott make slavery Ok until the 14th amendment?
Here is the bottom line: USC 1401 speaks to the issue and is writ law.
Not every right or responsibility is in the Constitution. As an example, the Constitution does not guarantee Rush Limbaugh, Jim Robinson, you or me to make internet posts without censorship, because although the Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech, there is no “Freedom of the Internet” therein.
Finally, why is this BS? Because in order to defeat Cruz and Hillary, Trump and his supporters must concentrate on the issues that effect swing voters wallets, their security, jobs, etc.
Putting ANY eggs in this basket is simply asking to be laughed at, and to vastly dilute Trump’s important, personally relevant issues.
Yes. Yes I do. Women did not and do not have an inherent right to vote. Their "right" to vote was given to them by men in 1919, and as it has turned out, was most likely a mistake. For a better argument as to this point than I feel the urge to make, you should watch this very profound and astute video which touches on this subject.
Did Dred Scott make slavery Ok until the 14th amendment?
No, slavery was "Okay" (meaning legal) since long before the country was founded. Dred Scott upheld what was the actual law at the time, and this continued to be the law until Dred Scott was overturned by the 14th amendment. Prior to this time, the US Constitution protected slavery quite effectively, though people started deliberately ignoring it when the Abolition movement picked up strength.
Here is the bottom line: USC 1401 speaks to the issue and is writ law.
USC 1401 does not have the power to redefine the constitution. No statute can change the US Constitution. Only an Amendment can change it.
I wonder what your previous screen name/s are or were.
“Finally, why is this BS?”
Because if you do not defend every aspect of the Constitution you’ll lose it little by little.
See The Broken Window Theory of Law Enforcement.
Troll!