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?
It makes perfect sense.
It does make sense, and yet, the very fact that all judges are not permitting discovery of Obama’s bona fides suggest that another tactic needs to be used. For some reason, though, with all of the lawsuits filed, the lack of eligibility due to the father being a British Subject has been avoided.
The rulings that tell the governed that they lack Standing makes my blood boil.