[BP2]

As we've demonstrated here on FR many times, if you apply EITHER Vattel's Law of Nations (Natural Law) or Blackstone's Commentaries (Common Law) to define Obama's Eligibility in the eyes of the Framers, Obama loses either way.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Vattel's Law of Nations (TWO Citizen Parents required)

Blackstone's Commentaries ("service to two masters" a/k/a Dual Citizenship)

[rxsid]

Indeed correct. Now, if only a case with the "proper" plaintiff (with standing, particularized injury) can get before a court with the jurisdiction (that can offer a "remedy"), this is a slam dunk. Obviously, SCOTUS will need to rule on this. Perhaps with the recent District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) ruling, they've shown that they still (to this day) look back at the intent of the framers.

Barry is clearly not Constitutionally qualified as intended by the framers.

At issue now is...is ANYTHING he signed (laws, agreements with other nations, etc), or any appointment he made (ex. to the SCOTUS bench) Constitutional? Clearly, IMO, everything he's done...including the health care monstrosity is illegal and thus null and void.

[Pilsner]

Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual

By that strain of Birther "logic," Obama's kids are Brits, not American Citizens, and the progeny of his (theoretical) sons will be Brits too. And no one is eligible to be President, unless they are descended in an unbroken line of natural born citizen male ancestors back to 1787, when the Constitution was adopted.

And then you folks get all riled up when Obama holds you out as a bunch of raving wack jobs, and smears all of his opponents by equating them to you.