Obama would probably be removed by the military, after a clarification of the definition by the Supreme Court, the method employed by Honduras when their President blatantly violated his constitution. It is reasonable, though it "depends upon what is is", that the recent Obama appointees to the court would recuse themselves, since they will lose their appointments if the framer's understanding is upheld. It is unlikely that Obama would be sent to a neighboring country, as will Zelaya. It appears the civilian Obama has committed a number of felonies as a fundraiser, and by using multiple social security numbers. He may actually have stated that he was a natural born citizen, though that is not at all clear. Only two states, Hawaii and Arizona required such a declaration, and Nancy Pelosi signed those declarations for the private corporation, the Democratic Party. Obama, on his own web site, told us he was a “Native born citizen of the U.S.” A “native born” citizen is born on our soil, but not necessarily of citizen parents.
If someone can find evidence of nonnative birth, it may be easier for the public to accept Obama’s removal in this period of virtually complete silence on the law by “The Ruling Class.” The last public officials to openly talk about the concept of jus sanguinis contained in Article II Section 1 of our Constitution were all 100 U.S. Senators in April of 2008 when they agreed with Senator Pat Leahy who said “I believe that someone born of two citizen parents is a natural born citizen.” He was referring specifically to John McCain, in the ploy to imply the John McCain was eligible, thus to silence any questions about Obama’s eligibility. Obama, not born of two citizen parents by his own admission, but was a cosponsor of Senate Res. 511. There is an implied assumption that the public is too ignorant of our laws, and incapable of logical thought. We can be cowed with the loud and self important proclamations of the media that questioning Obama’s eligibility makes us fools, rather like questioning global warning, or that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, or that redistribution will make us secure and improve the quality of our lives. The difference with eligiblity is that our framer's documents cannot easily be scrubbed.
Cases in our Supreme Court are still available. Pat Leahy scrubbed his government website of the Senate Res. 511 documents, but there is a Congressional Archive. Many of us saved the press announcements of the McCaskill-Leahy Resolution, and the previous Senate Bill 2678, Feb 2008, also to provide cover for McCain; a “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizens Act”, to “To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President.” Any doubt who they had in mind? Ask yourself why? Then wonder if McCain was a party to the fraud. (For those new to the topic, John McCain was sued, and had many inconclusive congressional hearings about his eligibility because he was not born on our soil; he was born in Panama, Colon Hospital, in 1936. Even if he had been born on the Coco Bolo base, as some assert, it was not territory over which the U.S. has sovereignty. I sounds unfair, but no amendment to change Article II Section 1 has passed, in 25 attempts). It seems very likely that John McCain's ambition has enabled someone dangerous to our survival to act as president. From the concealment of any real proof of Obama’s eligibility, and the reality of his alien birth, some very shrewd people have planned very carefully, using the fact that no president was every suspected of failing the natural born citizen provision. In hindsight, one president, Chester Arthur, was discovered by Leo Donofrio to have concealed his past, having been born as well of a British subject; Arthur, like Obama, concealed his family documents and burned them just before his death.
You bring up a very good point. Those that even know there is a question as to where Obama was born believe it is simply a matter of an American birth, or not. Even some on this site argue that point. The NBC argument is out there but only really discussed by those of us who follow this issue closely, legal circles and those involved on the ground.
Americans would have a much better chance at accepting his removal from office if it was shown he was not born in the United States. There will be many people, especially on the left, who will argue it should not matter - that is where the fight will be.
It’s a lost cause to think a majority of Americans would understand or could be shown to understand how, even if he was born in Hawaii, Obama does not meet the qualifications as set forth in the Constitution - and regardless of his mothers status as a citizen, SAD could not transfer NBC status to her son.
Thank you, very good summary.