Why LTC Lakins’ attorney is not pursuing the obvious: that Obama’s father (?) was a Kenyan National & British Subject renders Obama ineligible is beyond me.
I totally agree. And, IIRC, it was noted by the attorney. By why that isn’t used as the main issue - when it is, I just don’t get. I can’t imagine Lakin not asking the same question.
I think he’s not pursuing that because it requires a more in-depth Constitutional analysis that only the SCOTUS could eventually give, whereas we already have tons of evidence that even what Obama has is legally deficient - AND that Obama and others have committed crimes in order to cover for that legal deficiency.
I think it’s a matter of expedience - that it’s easier to pin somebody down by showing concrete evidence that they’ve committed forgery and that their birth certificate is legally worthless than it is to argue nuances in Constitutional law. Not that both don’t need to be done. We DO need a clear ruling on the meaning of “natural born US citizen”, and the more I see the more I realize the wisdom of the historic meaning of the term. It just might be easier to compel a legal response by using what is supposed to be routine verification to show the blatant illegalities committed thus far.
Does that make sense?