You said — “We have to remember that the Supreme Court also once held that coloreds were private property...”
Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants[2]—whether or not they were slaves—were not legal persons and could never be citizens of the United States, and that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Court also ruled that slaves could not sue in court, and that slaves—as chattel or private property—could not be taken away from their owners without due process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
The Supreme Court did not correct itself. It was an Constitutional Amendment that corrected this...
—
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, first intended to secure the rights of former slaves. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.[1]
The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) which had excluded slaves and their descendants from possessing Constitutional rights. The amendment requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions and was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle racial segregation in the United States, as in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Its Due Process Clause has been used to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
It may take another Constitutional Amendment to *correct* the “process” for vetting a candidate for President of the United States, per the Constitutionally listed qualifications. Or else, a number of state laws to do the same thing — i.e., “close up the loophole” in the Constitution...
This was exactly my point. The Supreme Court did NOT correct itself, and it took more than a half million deaths to correct their error.
As usual, Non-Sequitur trots in with the Anti-Birther Fog Machine and lays down a thick cloud over the issue.
We ain't seen The Big Wagyu's birth certificate, so get over your bad self, Non-Sequitur. :-)
you said “It may take another Constitutional Amendment to *correct* the “process” for vetting a candidate for President of the United States, per the Constitutionally listed qualifications. Or else, a number of state laws to do the same thing — i.e., “close up the loophole” in the Constitution...”
Prior to this circumstance, every other prior presidential candidate has a heritage of verifiable circumstances. Family lineage. Hometown. School records and friends. Church and baptismal certificates, including the people, friends and neighbors, neighborhood associations and accomplishments, diploma, college transcripts, college diploma........
What is troubling is that Obama has absolutely no records. No childhood shcool records, interaction with neighbors, childhood friends, birth certificate.nothing.
Prior to this circumstance the candidates family heritage and associations have been the vetting, and viewed as adequate to the people their citizenship qualifications.
Obama has no records. One locked up paper is the entire question.